1 2026:CGHC:8711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 533 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- E O W / A C B, Unit Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Laxminarayan Banchhor S/o Late Shri Ramadhin Banchhor Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Nagar Palika Road, Shantinagar, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Janardan Upadhyay S/o Late Shri Rudrprasad Upadhyay Aged About 45 Years R/o Near National School, Santoshipara, Police Station- Chhawni, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 18/02/2026 1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.03.2018 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Durg in Special Criminal Case No. 05/2016, ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.02.20 10:15:22 +0530 2 whereby the respondent accused persons have been acquitted from the offence of Section 7 and 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Cr.P.C. of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Avinash Dewangan PW-5 was intended to set up Fly As Bricks Factory at village Telgundra, Tahsil Patan, District Durg and for the electric connection he approached the electricity office at Patan. The respondent accused No.1 Laxminarayna Banchhor was the junior engineer at Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) at Patan who demanded Rs. 1 lakh as illegal gratification and then only file would be forwarded. Since the complainant was not intended to give any bribe to the respondent accused persons, he made a complaint on 08.03.2016 to Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur. The complainant was provided a digital voice recorder to get conversation between him and the accused recorded with respect to the illegal demand. On 11.03.2016, he again came to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and handed over the digital voice recorder to the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau and, thereafter, a trap party was constituted consists with B. K. Tiwari, D. S. Parihar, Navneet Patil, Lambodhar Patel, Shivsharan Sahu, Rampravesh Mishra, Santosh Sahu, Gyanvas Barle, Chandraprakash Sahu, the shadow witnesses Brijbhushan Goutam and Dayaram Soni were also the member of the trap party who were informed about the demand made by the accused persons. On 11.03.2016 at about 09:00 am, after satisfying from the complaint made by the complainant, unnumbered FIR has been registered and trap party started their proceedings. After the preparation of various panchnamas, applying phenopthelene powder over the currency notes and drawing the pre-trap proceedings and panchnama they proceeded towards the place of incident. The trap party went to the office of the respondent accused and after completion of transaction between the complainant and the accused persons, since the respondent accused were not there they 3 called him to another place at village Telgundra. When the trap party had gone to the place where the complainant was called by the accused persons, the respondent accused have also been came there and as and when the complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused Laxminarayan he handed over the said tainted currency notes to the respondent No.2 accused/Janardan Upadhyay who kept his in his right pocket of full pant and about to return back. At the same time the complainant made gesture about completion of transaction and then trap party intersected them and on being searched the tainted currency notes were recovered from the right pocket of full pant the respondent No.2 accused Janardan Upadhyay their handwash turned into pink colour and after recovery and seizure of the tainted currency notes and other solutions and preparing the various panchnamas, they returned back to the Police Station where numbered FIR was registered and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against the respondent/accused persons for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. After obtaining due permission from the competent authority for prosecution, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The learned trial Court has framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and relied upon the documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/40 in support of their case. 6. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the alleged offences, holding that the prosecution was not able to prove the demand made by the accused persons and that mere recovery is not 4 sufficient to hold them guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the State against the order of acquittal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but for minor omissions and contradictions, there are sufficient evidence against the respondent/accused person to convict him of the offence in question. Though there is no specific words come the in the evidence of the complainant that the accused persons were demanded the money, but it comes that when he approached to the authorities for electricity connection they stated the file would be moved only after payment of Rs. 1 lakh. 8. She would submits that the conversation between the complainant and the accused is corroborated with the recovery of tainted currency notes of Rs. 1 lakh and both the accused persons were involved in taking illegal gratification from the applicant, as the tainted currency was handed over to the respondent No.1 Laxminarayan who handed over to the respondent No. 2/Janardan Upadhyay and the said tainted currency notes was recovered from the pocket of the pant of Janardan Upadhay. The handwash of both the accused persons were turned into pink colour, which proved the acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification from the accused persons, yet the learned the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons by giving the benefit of trivial discrepancies in their evidences. The other witnesses has duly supported the prosecution case including the shadow witnesses who are the independent witnesses, therefore, there are sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the respondent/accused persons to convict them for the alleged offence in question and the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that when the demand itself is not proved, mere recovery is not sufficient to hold the conviction of 5 the appellant for the offence of illegal gratification. The judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court is absolutely justified which needs no interference. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 11. From perusal of the evidence of the complainant PW-5, it reveals that in Para -1 of his evidence, he stated that when he contacted with the respondent No.1, he asked him to deposit Rs. 1 lakh and since he feels and apprehend that the respondent No.1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1 lakh, he made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau. In Para-2 of his evidence, he also stated that when he made a written complaint to the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau, they asked him to mention the word demand in the said complaint then only they will accept his complaint and under their instructions he made the complaint and gave it to them. It is also stated in para-4 of his evidence that the conversation which was recorded in tape recorder was not clear and the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau were assured him that he will manage all that affairs. It is also submitted by the PW-5 in para-5 that the respondent No.1 Junior Engineer sent contractor for survey of his project and the respondent No.2/Janardan Upadhyay had come to survey the project. After the survey he handed over Rs. 1 lakh to Janardan Upadhay and he assured him that he will get its receipt from the office. At that time the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau came there and arrested them. In para-26 of his evidence, he admitted that due to bona-fide mistake he made a complaint against the accused Laxminarayan and on the date of incident neither Laxminarayan and nor Janardan Upadhyay demanded any money from him. He further admitted that Laxminarayan has asked him to deposit the amount to the office of CSPDCL and he has not obstructed in any proceedings of his electricity connection. In para-30 of his evidence, he further admitted that the accused Janardan Upadhyay had refused to accept the amount and asked 6 him to get it deposit with the CSPDCL office and since he did not want to go the CSPDCL, he forcefully given the said amount to Janardan Upadhyay. In para -31 of his statement he clearly admitted that the accused Laxminarayan have never demanded Rs. 1 lakh from him at any point of time. 12. Considering the evidence of the complainant that there was no demand by the respondent/accused persons from the complainant, holding that the recovery is not sufficient to hold the guilty of the respondent accused persons, for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, acquitted the accused persons. When the complainant himself has not supported the prosecution case with respect to the demand, one of the three ingredients to prove the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, i.e. the demand, acceptance and recovery, is missing. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the catena of decisions that mere recovery alone is not sufficient to hold guilty of the accused persons for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 13. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram” reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at Para 25 which reads as under: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C. the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused 7 does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such as double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 15. Considering the evidence available on record as well as law the laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. This Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal passed by learned trial Court particularly in view of the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the acquittal appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok