CGHC010000802002 2026:CGHC:37813 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 566 of 2002 Reserved on : 22.06.2026 Delivered on : 24.08.2026 Laxman Das Lahre (Dead) Through Legal Heirs. 1(a) Rambha Devi Wd/o Late Laxman Das Lahre, Aged About 45 Years. 1(b) Shridhar Anand Lahre S/o Late Laxman Das Lahre, Aged About 28 Years 1(c) Prakash Kumar Lahre S/o Laxman Das Lahre, Aged About 21 Years. All are R/o Qtr. No. A-33, Deendayal Housing Board Colony, Rampur Korba P. S. Rampur, Tahsil and District- Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant (s) versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Bhopal, Branch Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For accused : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla & Mr. Ravi Singh, Advocates. For State : Mr. Rishiraj Pithwa, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV JUDGMENT 1. The record of the case would show that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant/accused expired on 22.06.2014, therefore, his legal heirs i.e. wife- Smt. Rambha Devi and two sons namely Shridhar and Prakash moved an application for continuation of the criminal appeal on 27.09.2014 which was considered and allowed by this Court on 02.08.2018. Accordingly, the legal heirs were arrayed as appellants in this appeal. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the deceased appellant/accused under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.24 17:13:02 +0530 judgment dated 03.05.2002 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 11/2000 whereby the accused stands convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act : R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 4 months. U/s 13(i)(D) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act : R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 6 months. (Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently) 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a complaint on 23.02.2000 (Ex. P/1) before the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raipur alleging that he moved an application for grant of leave on account of his treatment and went to Nagpur but the said leave was not sanctioned and his salary for the month of February 1999, September 1999, October 1999 and 15 days of December 1999 were withheld. When the complainant approached the accused for releasing his salary and settlement of leave, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- directing him to pay Rs.5,000/- as cash immediately and remaining Rs. 5,000/- to be paid after releasing his salary. The complainant was not willing to give money to the accused as bribe, therefore, he made another written complaint on 29.02.2000 (Ex. P/5) before Lokayukta, Raipur. The prosecution taking cognizance of his complaint provided a tape recorder to the complainant and proceeding was initiated vide Ex.P/2. Thereafter the complainant recorded the conversation between him and the accused in the tape recorder regarding demand of illegal gratification and its transcription was prepared vide Ex. P/3. The prosecution after verification of the demand through tape recording, a trap party was prepared to catch the accused red-handed while accepting the bribe. 4. The preparation for giving bribe was done by smearing phenolphthalein powder over the notes, the same were given to the complainant and he was advised accordingly. The trap proceeding was conducted on 29.02.2000 and the deceased accused was caught hold by the Lokayukta. The accused was arrested and the offence bearing Crime No. 30/2000 was registered against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act, 1988”). The seized solutions and materials were sent for chemical examination. After usual investigation and completing all the formalities including obtaining sanction from the higher authority to prosecute the accused, the charge-sheet was filed against him for commission of offence under Section Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, has examined as many as 6 witnesses namely Balmukund Patel (PW-1), Tekram Sharma (PW-2), Rambharosa (PW-3), Yashwant Verma (PW- 4), Charan Singh (PW-5) & N.S. Rajput (PW-6) and exhibited documents (Ex. P/1 to P/31). The statement of the accused/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the trial Court wherein he has denied the allegations levelled against him, pleaded innocence and falsely implication. The accused in his defence has examined two witnesses namely Vilayat Ulla Khan (DW-1) & P.D. Dhritlahre (DW-2). 6. Learned trial Court appreciating the evidence, material on record has recorded its finding that the demand has been proved by the prosecution not only by the tape recorder wherein the demand and acceptance has been proved by the prosecution by direct evidence as well as duly supported by corroborative evidence and recorded its finding that deceased government servant/ accused has demanded and accepted Rs. 4000/- from the complainant which is gratification, thus, all the ingredients to attract the aforesaid offence for which the accused has been convicted have been found proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, it has convicted the accused as detailed above. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and imposition of sentence, the accused has preferred instant appeal before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the accused would submit that the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is contrary to law and the evidence available on record. He would further submit that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and has ignored the material contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused was competent to sanction the leave application or to release the salary of the complainant. In absence of proof regarding such authority, the allegation that the accused demanded illegal gratification for performing an official act becomes inherently improbable. He would further submit that the conviction based on the tape-recorded conversation is unsustainable as the prosecution has not established through reliable evidence that the voice recorded in the cassette belongs to the accused or not. No scientific evidence or proper identification of voice has been produced, therefore, the tape-recorded conversation could not have been relied upon. He would further submit that the complainant himself admitted during cross-examination that he was annoyed with the complainant, as such the same admission clearly establishes previous animosity and provides a motive for false implication, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. 8. He would further submit that the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is unsustainable as there is no independent evidence establishing the ingredients of criminal misconduct. The trial Court has also erred in awarding separate sentences under both provisions. Hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him and would pray for allowing the appeal. 9. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ram Singh & others Vs. Col. Ram Singh [SCC 1985 (Suppl.) 611], Selvaraj Vs. State of Karnataka [(2015) 10 SCC 230], Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana [AIR SCW 2010 (3) 2282], Krishna Chander Vs. State of Delhi [(2016) 3 SCC 108], B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 13 SCC 55] & and the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Mohammad Hanif (Died) through Lrs. Vs. State of C.G. [CGLJ 2019 (1) 434]. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the accused would submit that the prosecution has proved all the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant has consistently deposed regarding demand of illegal gratification by the accused and his testimony is duly corroborated by the trap witnesses, the members of the trap party and the investigating officer. He would further submit that the tainted currency notes were recovered from possession of the accused immediately after acceptance. The phenolphthalein test yielded positive results, thereby corroborating the prosecution case regarding acceptance of the bribe amount. He would further submit that even if the complainant was dissatisfied with the conduct of the accused, mere existence of previous grievance does not by itself render the prosecution case false, particularly when the demand and acceptance are corroborated by independent evidence, therefore, conviction recorded by the trial Court calls for no interference and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 12. From the submissions made by both the parties, the Point emerges for determination of this Court is :- Point : Whether the prosecution has proved the offences for which the accused has been charged beyond reasonable doubt or conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court? 13. To appreciate the point determined by this Court, it is expedient for this Court to examine the evidence, material on record. 14. Complainant- Balmukund Patel (PW-1) has been examined before the trial Court wherein in his examination-in-chief he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint (Ex. P/1 & P/5) and also stated that he was given a tape recorder and procedure to operate the tape recorder was explained to him and he has recorded the conversation with the accused, transcription (Ex. P/3) was prepared wherein he has put his signature. He has stated that after starting the tape recorder he had told the accused that he could not arrange the entire amount and brought Rs. 4000/- then the accused has asked him to pay full amount when salary of January, February will be drawn. He has further stated that when he stepped down from first floor he gave Rs. 4000/- to the accused which was kept by him in his pocket and after giving the money, he gave signal to the trap team who caught hold the accused and thereafter the procedure for red-handed trapping was conducted. This witness was extensively cross-examined by the defence wherein he remained affirm with regard to the demand made by the accused and stated that when he started the tape recorder he talked to the accused that he has brought Rs. 4000/- only then the accused told that with such amount the work cannot be done then he told to the deceased accused that keep this amount and the remaining will be paid after releasing the salary. Thus, nothing was brought on record by the defence to dislodge the demand and acceptance made by the accused. 15. Yashwant Verma (PW-4) who was panch witness has been examined before the trial Court wherein he has stated that he was deputed to assist the Lokayukta authorities in the trap proceedings. He has further stated that they reached the Lokayukta Office at Raipur in the morning, where they were informed that they had to proceed to Baloda Bazar for confidential work, therefore, they traveled with the Lokayukta officers to Palari Rest House, where the complainant, Balmukund Patel, arrived and submitted a written complaint. The witness read the complaint aloud, listened to the recorded cassette containing the conversation, and the transcript of the recording was also prepared. Being satisfied with the contents of the complaint, he made an endorsement and signed the complaint as well as the transcript. The cassette was seized and sealed in his presence. He has further stated that at Baloda Bazar Petrol Pump, 40 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each were produced, their serial numbers were noted, and a phenolphthalein demonstration was conducted and narrated the entire procedure for red-handed trapping. He has further stated that the deceased accused came out of the post office along with the complainant and when the complainant gave signal they caught hold the accused and thereafter red-hand trapping was conducted and when they have asked witness Ramlal Verma to search the accused it was found that the notes were seized from pocket of the deceased accused. The numbers were tallied and it was found to be the same notes. This witness was cross-examined but nothing was brought to record to rebut the evidence and also denied that the notes were not seized from the deceased accused. 16. Investigating Officer- N.S. Rajput (PW-6) has been examined before the trial Court wherein he has narrated the procedure of trapping and in paragraph 7 he has stated that when he asked the deceased accused about the bribe money then the accused informed that the same has been kept in the pocket then he asked the panch witness Ramlal to remove the said bribe money from the pocket and on verification it was found to be the same currency notes. He has also stated that pocket of the full pant was washed then the pocket became pink. The notes and the full pant were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/20. He has also narrated the tape recording proceedings and exhibited the documents. This witness was extensively cross-examined but nothing was brought on record to rebut the same. The said witness has specifically denied that neither the notes nor the deceased accused was accepting the bribe money from the complainant. He has admitted that he has not recorded any voice sample to match the voice. 17. The statement of the accused/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the trial Court wherein he has denied the allegations levelled against him, pleaded innocence and falsely implication and also stated that when he visited the office of Balmukund, it was found that the complainant is drawing the salary of absence period, therefore, he had sent information to the drawing disbursing authority that he is not withdrawing the salary of the accused nor paying the salary to the complainant but he is creating pressure over him and also told him that departmental enquiry will be conducted for absent and for taking salary, therefore, the complainant has falsely implicated him. 18. The accused in order to prove his innocence has examined Vilayat Ulla Khan (DW-1) who has stated that he is acquainted with the complainant and the accused. He has further stated that every month officials were required to inspect the post offices falling within the Sub- Division and during inspection of Konari Branch Post Office 7 th & 8 th month of 1998, he found the complainant was absent from duty, therefore, he prepared an absence report and submitted it to the accused and also stated that the salary could not be released unless the accused passed the necessary order. 19. The record of the case would further clearly demonstrate that the prosecution to prove the demand has conducted the tape recording proceeding and prepared the tape record panchnama (Ex. P/2) thereafter prepared the transcription (Ex. P/3) of the conversation between accused and the accused. From perusal of Ex. P/3 it is quite vivid that the deceased accused has told the complainant that if any action is taken by him then the complainant has to deposit Rs. 35,000/- to 36,000/- and his services may also be terminated, therefore, I am not taking any action. He has also told the complainant that the complainant used to write unwanted things which has to be replied by him and told him that he has been asked to deposit the amount. He has also told that no one can be remained absent for more than six months and if it is being reported then the complainant will lose his service. He has also told that he is lucky that I am new man and known to the accused and the complainant will be benefited. Thereafter the complainant asked the accused how much he has to give then the accused told Rs. 10,000/-. The transcription was seized and was kept in the seal vide Ex. P/4. Thus, from appreciation of evidence, it is quite vivid that there is negotiation with regard to transaction of money between the accused and the complainant, therefore, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that there is no direct negotiation with regard to demand but some money transaction was discussed, therefore, it is expedient for this Court to examine whether the prosecution is able to prove the demand and acceptance made by the deceased accused through circumstantial evidence or not. 20. To examine whether the demand made by the deceased accused has been proved by circumstantial evidence or not, this Court has gone through the evidence of complainant (PW-1) who has reiterated the averments made in the complaint (Ex. P/1 & P/5) and further affirmed the conversation recorded in the tape recorder (the tape recorder was also heard to this witness in the Court) and also stated that the complainant told the accused that he could not arrange full money but has brought only Rs. 4000/- and remaining amount will be paid to him at the time of releasing the salary then the accused has told him that you never gave full money and told that when salary for the month of January and February will be received then full amount be given. This witness in the cross-examination has told that when he has requested the accused for withdrawal of his salary then he demanded Rs. 10,000/-. In paragraph 34 he remained affirm about the demand and stated that he told the accused that he has brought Rs. 4000/- then the accused has told him that such amount is not adequate and also denied that no demand was made to him. This clearly establishes that the prosecution is able to prove the demand made by the deceased accused by other circumstantial evidence. 21. Learned trial Court while recording the finding of conviction has categorically recorded its finding in paragraph 22 that the prosecution is able to prove by oral evidence that the deceased accused has demanded Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant for accepting the leave and salary of the leave period out of which Rs. 4000/- was given to him and the same has been seized. 22. The record of the case would further demonstrate that the tainted money has also been seized from the deceased accused’s pocket and the same was sent for chemical analysis and from the report (Ex. P/27), it was found that in Article- C which is water after washing hands of the deceased accused, Article- D i.e. water after washing notes, Article- E i.e. pocket of full pant of the deceased accused, Article- F i.e. water after accepting bribe amount by the accused, were found to be pink and opinion was given that in the solution, sodium carbonate and polyethylene was found, thus, it is quite vivid that the deceased accused has accepted the bribe amount. From perusal of the record, particularly the evidence of the complainant regarding demand is consistent and finds material corroboration from the trap proceedings. The recovery of the tainted currency notes from possession of the accused immediately after the trap and the positive chemical examination constitutes strong corroborative circumstances proving acceptance of illegal gratification. Once demand and acceptance stand proved, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act comes into operation and the accused has not offered any plausible explanation regarding possession of the tainted currency notes, as such the presumption remains unrebutted by the accused. 23. Therefore, the finding of proving demand and acceptance by the prosecution is in accordance with the law laid down by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [2023 (4) SCC 731] wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has summarized the principle of proving demand by direct or circumstantial evidence in case relates to the Act, 1988 and has held in paragraphs 88 to 88.3 as under:- “88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarized as under: 88.1 (a) 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 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.2 (b) In order to bring home the 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. 88.3 (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, 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. 24. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Karunanithi vs. The State Represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2025 INSC 967 has held in paragraph-14 as under:- 14. A constitution Bench of this Court in Neeraj Datta vs. State (NCT of Delhi 2023(4) SCC 731 has held that for recording a conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) and (ii) of the Act, the prosecution has to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence. In other words, to convict a person under the aforesaid provision demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non. 25. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State by Lokayukta Police vs. Sri K. Rangayya and Anr reported in 2026 INSC 575 and has taken the same view. 26. From appreciation of the evidence and availability of tainted money with the accused, proving of demand and acceptance by cogent evidence, proves the guilt of the deceased accused. As such the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is unable to rebut the presumption by showing that the trap was fabricated or that the recovery was manipulated. 27. From the analysis of entire evidence, material on record it is quite vivid that the prosecution is able to prove the essential ingredients for conviction of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, demand and acceptance, therefore, I am of the view that the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. As such, Point determined by this Court is answered against the accused and in favour of the respondent. 28. Now the contention of learned counsel for the accused regarding separate conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, is being considered by this Court. Section 7 of the Act, 1988 deals with the offence relating to public servant being bribed and Section 13 (1)(d) of the Act, 1988 deals with the criminal misconduct if any government servant by corrupt or illegal means obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage and Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988 deals with the criminal misconduct. From perusal of these Sections, it is quite vivid that all the Sections are in a different sphere and though may arise from same transaction but all the offences are separate and distinct, therefore, prosecution has rightly charged the accused for different offences though it may arise from the same transaction. Considering this legal position, the submission made by learned counsel for the deceased accused that the deceased accused should not be convicted for the aforesaid offences separately, is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. The grounds urged in the appeal are devoid of merit. No case is made out for interference with the judgment of conviction or the order of sentence. 29. Accordingly, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are hereby affirmed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun