1 2026:CGHC:19658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 111 of 2021 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through-In-Charge Police Station Economic Offence Wing/anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus Akhtar Ahmed Siddhiqui S/o Late Mohammad Nisar Aged About 45 Years Assistant Superintendent Project Officer, O/o Rajpur Present Attached With Office Of District Programme Officer, Women And Child Development Department Ambikapur District Surguja District Mominpura Parradand, Mahamaya Road Ward No. 36, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 28/04/2026 1. The present acquittal appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Ambikapur, District – Sarguja in Special Criminal Case No.01.2014, whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the accused / respondent from the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Sanjay Kumar Bhagat, son of Moharsai, aged 41 years, resident of Narmadapur, Mainpat, District Surguja, submitted a written complaint on 01.08.2011 before Shri Anil Pathak at the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur. He stated that his mother, Smt. S. Tirkey, had retired two years earlier from the post of Anganwadi Supervisor at Mainpat, and her dues such as provident fund and leave encashment were still pending. It was alleged that the accused, clerk Siddiqui Babu posted in the office of the Project Officer, Ambikapur, had prepared the bill and got it passed from the Treasury at Sitapur, and had kept a cheque of approximately Rs.3,00,000/- ready. However, he was demanding a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for handing over the cheque. The complainant stated that he did not want to pay the bribe but wanted the accused to be caught red-handed while accepting it. On 31.07.2011, the complainant recorded a conversation with Siddiqui Babu from his mobile number 9165xxxxxx to the accused’s mobile number 97530xxxxx and prepared an audio CD, which was presented before DSP Shri Anil Pathak, who listened to it. After arranging Rs.10,000/- as bribe money, the complainant again contacted the accused, who asked him to come to the District Programme Officer’s office, Ambikapur on 08.08.2011 with the bribe amount. 3. Further, on 05.08.2011, the complainant informed DSP Anil Pathak, who then planned a trap. A letter was sent to the Protocol Officer, Bilaspur to provide two gazetted officers as panch 3 witnesses by 06.08.2011. Accordingly, a list of four witnesses was sent, out of which B.P. Agrawal and L.K. Lakra appeared as panch witnesses on 06.08.2011 and were instructed to remain present on 08.08.2011 at 4:30 AM and stay in contact. On 08.08.2011, as per instructions of DSP Anil Pathak, a trap team was formed under his leadership, including Inspector Ramakant Sharma (Investigating Officer), Inspector M.J. Singh, Constable Kashiram, staff member Kitab Singh, and the two panch witnesses. The complainant was instructed to meet at Ambikapur by 9:00 AM. The trap team departed from ACB Bilaspur at 4:30 AM and reached Hotel Mayura, Ambikapur at 9:30 AM. Room No. 212 was booked, and preliminary panchnama proceedings were conducted. The complainant was introduced to the panch witnesses. A second written complaint was submitted and marked for legal action. The complaint and the audio CD of the bribe demand were shown and seized in presence of witnesses. An offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the accused. During the proceedings, the complainant produced Rs.10,000/- (20 notes of Rs.500 each). The serial numbers were noted, and phenolphthalein powder was applied to the notes. The complainant’s personal search was conducted, and the tainted money was kept in his shirt pocket. He was instructed to give the money only upon demand and to signal by placing both hands on his head after the transaction. A micro-cassette recorder was given to the complainant to record the conversation. Panch 4 witness, B.P. Agrawal was assigned as a shadow witness to observe the transaction discreetly. When the complainant initially went to meet the accused, he was not present. On calling, the accused said he was at Rajpur due to official work and would return by 3:00 PM, later extending it to 5:00 PM. Around 4:45 PM, the accused called and asked the complainant to meet him at the office within 10 minutes. This conversation was recorded. The trap team proceeded to the office of the District Programme Officer, Women and Child Development Department, Ambikapur. Around 5:05 PM, the accused arrived and sat at his desk. The complainant approached him, and upon demand, handed over the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-. After the transaction, the complainant came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. 4. Immediately, the trap team entered and caught the accused. His hands were held, and a sodium carbonate solution test was conducted, which turned pink, indicating contact with phenolphthalein. On questioning, the accused hesitated. The complainant stated that the accused had kept the money inside a paper in his black bag on the table. Before recovery, the personal search of the panch witness was conducted. Thereafter, the tainted money was recovered from the accused’s black rexine bag, where it was kept inside a Central Bank of India deposit slip. The serial numbers matched with those recorded earlier. Further, the solution test on the recovered money and the deposit slip also turned pink. The solution was preserved and sealed. Additional 5 documents related to the complainant’s mother were seized from the accused’s office. A cheque of Rs.2,53,610/- in the name of Smt. Sukhli Tirkey was also produced and documented. A site map was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, and based on primary and secondary evidence, a charge-sheet was filed in court. 5. Upon the charges described in Paragraph 01 being framed, the accused denied the charges and demanded trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: Harshvardhan Sharma (PW-1), Kashiram Bhuarya (PW-2), Biharilal Rajwade (PW-3), M.J. Singh (PW-4), Sanjay Kumar Bhagat (PW-5), L.K. Lakra (PW-6), Bajrang Prasad Agrawal (PW- 7), Kitab Singh Markam (PW-8), Lochan Pandey, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-9), Anand Prakash Kispotta (PW- 10), Anil Kumar Pathak, retired DSP (PW-11), Ramakant Sharma, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-12), Md. Naim (PW- 13), and Mukesh Thakur (PW-14). In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused claimed innocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated. In his defence, the accused examined defence witness Lati Das (DW-1) and also examined himself as defence witness Akhtar Ahmad Siddiqui (DW-2). 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are offences 6 against society at large. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Bhalchandra Laxmi Shankar, such cases require careful and detailed evaluation of evidence. The trial Court further failed to properly analyze Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates drawing a statutory presumption once acceptance of illegal gratification is established, unless rebutted by the accused. The object of this presumption is to relieve the prosecution from the burden of proving demand by strict primary evidence, and insistence on direct proof of demand is contrary to the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the evidence on record clearly establishes acceptance of illegal gratification. The testimony of the panch witnesses, coupled with the phenolphthalein test, proves the acceptance of tainted money, thereby attracting the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. The learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly (P.W.-2) Kashiram Bhuarya, a member of the trap team, whose evidence is consistent and inspires confidence. Similarly, the statements of panch witnesses (P.W.-6) and (P.W.-7) have been wrongly discarded, despite their clear and cogent deposition supporting the prosecution case. He also submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration) and Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) that direct evidence of demand is not always necessary, particularly in situations where the complainant is unavailable, 7 hostile, or cannot be examined. In such circumstances, demand can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including recovery of tainted money and corroboration by panch witnesses. Therefore, in view of the settled legal principles and evidence on record, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is unjust, improper, and bad in law, and deserves to be set-aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and submitted that the learned trial Court, upon a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the respondent and the said well- reasoned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. 9. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal against 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 8 would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 10. In the present case, the first and foundational aspect requiring determination is whether the findings recorded by the learned trial Court can be said to be perverse, illegal, or wholly unsustainable in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the scope of interference is extremely limited. Unless the view taken by the trial Court is manifestly erroneous or not a possible view based on the evidence on record, the appellate Court ought not to substitute its own opinion merely because another view is possible. 11. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredient of demand of illegal gratification by the accused. The complainant, namely, Sanjay Kumar Bhagat (P.W.-5), who is the star witness of the prosecution, has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. His testimony, rather than supporting the case of demand, indicates that the money was placed on the table by him on his own accord and was even pushed back by the accused. The complainant further stated that due to the air from the window, the currency notes scattered and he himself collected them and kept them in the bag of the accused. Such version of the complainant strikes at the very root of the prosecution case and renders the allegation of voluntary acceptance of bribe highly 9 doubtful. Further, the testimony of the panch witnesses (P.W.-6 and P.W.-7) and the trap team members also does not advance the case of the prosecution insofar as proof of demand is concerned. Both the panch witnesses have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that they neither heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused nor witnessed the actual transaction of money. Similarly, P.W.-2 Kashiram has also admitted that the complainant alone went inside the office and the trap team remained outside. Thus, the crucial aspect of demand and acceptance is not proved through independent and reliable evidence. 12. In this context, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. squarely applies, wherein it has been held that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money, in the absence of proof of demand, is not sufficient to sustain conviction. In the present case, once the complainant himself has not supported the case of demand, and there is no other reliable evidence to prove the same, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked. It is also pertinent to note that though the phenolphthalein test has yielded a positive result and recovery of tainted money from the bag of the accused is established, such recovery, in the absence of proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, loses its evidentiary significance. The prosecution 10 has further failed to examine independent witnesses present at the office during the trap proceedings, which creates an additional dent in the credibility of the prosecution case. The learned trial Court, after a detailed appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and voluntarily accepted illegal gratification. The view taken by the trial Court is a plausible and reasonable view based on the evidence, and cannot be termed as perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis and applying the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. However, in view of the order passed in the connected Criminal Revision bearing CRR No.296 of 2021, paragraphs 27 to 35 of the impugned judgment stands expunged. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the judgment of acquittal dated 19.02.2021 passed by the learned trial Court is affirmed. 14. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil