MUKESH CHIMANLAL GANDHI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
Reserved On : 12/08/2026
Pronounced On : 05/11/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2232 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Sd/-
===============================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
MUKESH CHIMANLAL GANDHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR CJ VIN(978) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred under
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the
convict, and is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 06.12.2004 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Court No.4 (Special) for C.B.I. Cases, at
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, in Special (C.B.I.) Case No.58 of
1995.
Page 1 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
2. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and
sentence, the trial court has held the appellant-accused guilty
and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 7,
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Consequently, the trial court has imposed a fixed term of
sentence upon the appellant-accused to undergo imprisonment
as under :-
Section Imprisonment Fine
(Rs.)
In default of
payment of fine
7 r/w
Imprisonment for one
1000 Simple Imprisonment
13(2)
year
for two months
13(1)(d) Imprisonment for two
1000 Simple Imprisonment
years
for two months
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence, the appellant-accused has
preferred the present Criminal Appeal seeks to quash and set
aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
06.12.2004 passed by the trial court.
PROSECUTION’S CASE IN A NUT-SHELL :
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant
Page 2 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
Mr.Anton Earnest Dias, a resident of Shakra Ganchi’s Chawl,
Road No.12, Khokhra Mehamdabad, Maninagar, Ahmedabad,
was appointed on 29.06.1985 and discharging his duties as a
Khalasi since last ten years in the CNW Department, Western
Railway, Ahmedabad. It is alleged that during the service, his
right eye got damaged on 18.12.1994 and he lost his eye-sight. It
is further alleged that on 05.06.1995, the Screening Committee
of the Railways decided to continue him on service as a
Scaleman. Thereafter, he was awaiting his posting order, and in
the interregnum period, he came to know that he has been
transferred from the Carriage Department to the Traffic
Department of the Railways. It is further the case of the
prosecution that subsequently the complainant Mr.Anton Dias
approached the present appellant-accused, who was serving as
the Chief Clerk in the Traffic Department, O/o Divisional
Railway Manager, Western Railway, Pratapnagar, Baroda,
regarding his posting order, as he was not getting his salary and
was facing monetary crisis. It is alleged that the appellant-
accused had demanded Rs.500=00 from the complainant for
issuance of the posting order. On 12.10.1995, the complainant
Mr.Anton Dias had again met the appellant-accused, who told
him to pay Rs.500=00 for the posting order or else his work
Page 3 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
would not be done and directed him to come again on
17.10.1995 with the bribe money.
5. It is alleged that because the complainant, Mr.Anton Dias,
was unwilling to pay the bribe, he approached the CBI office and
explained his grievance to the Police Inspector Shri Sanjaykumar
Ranvijaybahadur Singh. The Police Inspector then took him to
the Superintendent of Police Shri Pawar, where the complaint
was formally lodged on 16.10.1995. On the strength of the
complaint, a trap was laid by Shri Sanjaykumar
Ranvijaybahadur Singh. In furtherance thereto, the members of
the raiding team along with the complainant and two panchas,
namely, Shri Satish Vasudevan Nair, Field Assistant, Vigilance
Department, IPCL, Baroda, and Shri Harshawardhan Marutirao
Thorat, Senior Officer, Vigilance Department, IPCL, Baroda, went
to the office of the Divisional Manager, Western Railway,
Pratapnagar, Baroda. It is alleged that the complainant had told
the trapping officer Shri Sanjaykumar Singh that the appellant-
accused had asked him to come to his office on the next day on
Thursday, i.e. on 19.10.1995, as there were many persons
present in the office. Therefore, on 19.10.1995, all the members
of the raiding team had again reached the DRM Office at Baroda,
Page 4 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
and at around 3 O’clock in the afternoon, the complainant and
the panch no.1 met the appellant-accused, who then demanded
the bribe money from the complainant. Thereafter, the
complainant tendered the tainted currency notes worth
Rs.500=00 to the complainant, who accepted it with his right
hand, counted the notes and the same were put in the rear
pocket of his trouser. Upon receiving the prearranged signal, all
the members of the raiding team rushed to the place and the
appellant-accused was caught red-handed accepting the bribe
money from the complainant in presence of the panchas. The
raiding party, thereafter, recovered the currency notes smeared
with phenolphthalein powder from the possession of the
appellant-accused and the same were verified and compared
with the number of the currency notes written in the
panchnama, whereupon the recovered notes were found to be
the same.
6. On the basis of the complaint, the accused came to be
arrested. The trial court, after following due procedure, framed
the Charge vide Exh.27 on 26.09.2001 against the accused, for
the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2)
and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, the
Page 5 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
statement of the appellant-accused was recorded vide Exh.28,
who abjured his guilt by pleading his innocence and claimed to
be tried.
7. To bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined
eight witnesses and adduced ten documentary evidence in
support of his case, which are as follows :-
NO. WITNESSES NAME EXHIBIT
1.
Satish Vasudevan Nair, Shadow/Panch-Witness
No.1
33
2. Anton E.Dias, Complainant 41
3. Sanjaykumar Ranvijaybahadur Singh, Trapping
47
Officer
4. Kanchanlal Madhobhai Vasawa, Staff Member,
52
Railway Office
5. Sanjay Surendrakumar Suri, Sanctioning Officer 64
6. Omprakash D.Khurana, Staff Member, Railway
73
Office
7. Arifkhan B.Pathan 77
8. Jitendrasing Vishwanathsing, Investigating Officer 78
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
SR.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT EXHIBIT
NO.
1 FIR in RC No.39(A)/95-ABD 53
Page 6 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
2 Panchnama Parts I to IV 34
3 Complaint of Anton Dias 42
4 CFSL Opinion 54
5 Blank Letter bearing signature of Shri A.B.Pathan 35
6 Receipt & Recovery Memo 48 & 36
7 Note-sheet of personal file of Anton Dias 55
8 Report of Screening Committee 56
9 Approval Note of ADRM 57
10 Original Sanction Order for prosecution of the
accused
65
8. On completion of the recording of the evidence, the trial
court explained the incriminating circumstances appearing
against the accused. The accused, in his further statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., denied the allegations
levelled against him by the prosecution of accepting the bribe
and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the alleged offence.
9. On completion of the trial, the trial court, vide judgment
and order dated 06.12.2004, convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
Page 7 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict has
preferred the present Criminal Appeal No.2232 of 2004, which
came to be admitted vide order dated 12.01.2005.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED :
11. At the outset, learned counsel Mr.C.J.Vin appearing for the
appellant (original accused), while taking this Court through the
factual matrix of the case, has submitted that the trial court did
not consider the entire evidence in its true perspective, which
resulted into an erroneous conviction of the appellant under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act.
12. Learned counsel Mr.Vin, while inviting the attention of this
Court to the ocular as well as documentary evidence adduced by
the prosecution before the trial court, has submitted that
appreciation of the evidence in its entirety would clearly
demonstrate that the appellant had not committed the alleged
offence. He has further submitted that on the contrary, the
Page 8 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
evidence on record unequivocally indicates that the complainant,
at the instance of one Shri C.N.Vani, who was serving as a Head
Clerk on the establishment of the Western Railways,
Pratapnagar, Vadodara, at the relevant point of time, and with
the active help of the CBI officials, had deliberately and in a
calculated manner, falsely implicated the appellant in the alleged
offence.
13. Learned counsel Mr.Vin has further submitted that the
appellant had been junior in rank to the Head Clerk Shri
C.N.Vani. However, by virtue of his competence, efficiency and
constant success in various examinations, the appellant earned
promotion to a senior rank to that of Shri C.N.Vani, and was
subsequently, appointed as Chief Clerk. According to learned
counsel Mr.Vin, such advancement in service had become a
source of envy and resentment.
14. It is further contended that, at the time of the incident in
question, the appellant was due for promotion to a higher grade.
Learned counsel urged that, with a view to frustrating his
prospects of promotion, the appellant was deliberately implicated
in the present criminal case pursuant to a premeditated
Page 9 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
conspiracy, thereby casting a stigma upon his otherwise
unblemished service record.
15. Learned counsel Mr.Vin has empathetically submitted that
notwithstanding the fact that the entire evidence adduced by the
prosecution before the trial court was inherently suspicious from
the very inception and clearly indicates that the appellant has
been deliberately and systematically implicated in the alleged
offence. It is further submitted that unfortunately the trial court
has failed to consider these material circumstances, and in doing
so, the trial court has overlooked the glaring infirmities,
inconsistencies and inherent contradictions apparent on the face
of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, thereby rendering
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence erroneous
and unsustainable in law.
16. In the course of his detailed submissions, learned counsel
Mr.Vin has averred the following principal contentions in
support of his case, which may be summarised as under :
(i) The allegation against the appellant is that he had
demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for issuance
Page 10 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
of the posting order. However, the appellant had neither the
power nor the authority to issue the posting order in question.
(a) The appellant was not even authorized to deal with
the file pertaining to the posting of the complainant, rather
the authority to deal with the said file was vested with the
Head Clerk Shri C.N.Vani.
(b) The appellant was neither associated, in any manner
whatsoever, with the proceedings or process relating to the
posting of the complainant nor the file pertaining to the
posting of the complainant routed through the appellant at
any stage. Therefore, there was no occasion for the
appellant to demand illegal gratification from the
complainant regarding his posting.
(ii) Admittedly, there is no material on record to substantiate
the allegation of initial demand of illegal gratification.
Furthermore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with
regard to the alleged demand on the day of trap is mutually
inconsistent and contradictory. The version of the alleged
demand as reflected in the panchnama also materially differs
Page 11 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
from the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, thereby
rendering the prosecution’s case highly doubtful.
(iii) According to the prosecution’s case, on 12.10.1995, when
the complainant (PW-2) Mr.Anton Dias approached the appellant
in connection with his posting, the appellant allegedly asked the
complainant to bring money on 17.10.1995 if he wants to obtain
the posting order. The complainant is stated to have lodged the
complaint with the CBI office, Ahmedabad, on 16.10.1995.
However, the evidence on record reveals material contradictions
regarding the recording of the complaint.
(a) The complainant, during his cross-examination, has
specifically elicited that he himself had written down the
complaint in his own handwriting independently without
any dictation or direction from anyone, and thereafter, the
same was submitted to the CBI office, Ahmedabad. In
contrast, the trapping officer (PW-3) Shri Sanjaykumar
Singh, in his deposition at Exh.47, has stated that on
16.10.1995, he had reduced the facts narrated by the
complainant in writing and obtained his signature thereon.
(b) Significantly, the shadow witness (PW-1) Shri Satish
Page 12 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
Vasudevan Nair, in his deposition at Exh.33, has stated
that on 17.10.1995, the complaint was prepared on the
basis of the facts narrated by the complainant Mr.Anton
Dias at the IPCL Guest House, Vadodara, and that both the
panch-witnesses had endorsed their signatures on it.
(c) Thus, the evidence of the prosecution discloses
material contradiction as to who had actually prepared the
complaint and on which date it was recorded. These
inconsistencies assume significance in assessing the
reliability of the prosecution’s case.
(iv) The complainant has failed to disclose the specific date on
which he had initially met the appellant in connection with his
posting order and on which date the initial demand for illegal
gratification was made. According to the prosecution's case,
when the complainant met the accused again on 12.10.1995, the
accused allegedly asked the complainant that the work would
not be done unless the money is paid. However, despite the
alleged demand, the complainant did not lodge a complaint until
16.10.1995, which assumes significance.
Page 13 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
(v) On the basis of the complaint dated 16.10.1995, a trap
was arranged on 17.10.1995. However, according to the
prosecution's case, on 17.10.1995, the accused neither accepted
the money at Vadodara Railaway Station nor accepted it on
19.10.1995 in the morning hours, when the complainant met
him at the Divisional Railway Manager’s office, Western Railway,
Pratapnagar, Baroda. However, when approached again at 3:00
p.m., the appellant accepted the same near the cyclostyle room
on the lobby.
(vi) Since the processing of the complainant's posting was
within the domain of the Head Clerk Shri C.N.Vani, there was no
occasion for the appellant-accused to demand illegal gratification
on 12.10.1995.
(vii) A conjoint reading of the evidence of the witnesses (PW-7)
Shri Sadiqkhan B.Pathan and (PW-6) Shri Omprakash
D.Khurana along with the evidence of the Investigating Officer
(PW-8) Shri Jitendrasing Vishwanathsing reveals that Shri
C.N.Vani had proceeded on leave only for the period from
17.10.1995 to 19.10.1995 and he had remained absent from the
office.
Page 14 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
(viii) According to learned advocate Mr.Vin appearing for the
appellant-accused, such absenteeism was not co-incidental but
was a deliberate and strategic tactic to facilitate the false
implication of the appellant-accused in the alleged offence.
(ix) The circumstances surrounding the alleged demand,
including the delay in lodging the complaint, the appellant-
accused’s alleged refusal to accept the money on the earlier
occasion, the subsequent alleged acceptance by the appellant-
accused near the cyclostyle room, and the absence of Shri Vani
during the relevant period, cast serious doubt on the
prosecution's case when considered cumulatively, and lend
support to the defence’s plea of false implication.
(x) The evidence of the complainant (PW-2) Mr.Anton Dias and
the shadow witness (PW-1) Shri Satish Vasudevan Nair are
materially at variance with respect to the place where the
appellant allegedly accepted the bribe amount and the place
from where the same was recovered. This discrepancy assumes
considerable significance in assessing the credibility of the
prosecution’s case.
Page 15 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
(a) The complainant, in his deposition, has stated that
the appellant accepted the bribe amount with his right
hand, counted the currency notes with his left hand, and
thereafter placed them in a wallet kept in the rear pocket of
his trouser. He has further deposed that the appellant
thereafter returned to his office and resumed his seat.
According to the complainant, upon his giving the
predetermined signal, the members of the raiding party
arrived at the spot and recovered the tainted currency
notes from the rear pocket of the appellant's trouser.
(b) The shadow witness (PW-1) Shri Satish Vasudevan
Nair, however, has deposed that the appellant accepted the
bribe amount near the cyclostyle room, and that upon the
complainant giving the predetermined signal, the members
of the raiding party rushed to the said place and recovered
the amount from the appellant's wallet near the cyclostyle
room itself.
(c) Thus, the testimonies of the complainant and the
shadow witness are materially inconsistent as regards the
place where the alleged bribe amount was recovered. While
Page 16 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
the complainant's version places the recovery at the
appellant's office, after he had resumed his seat, the
shadow witness places it near the cyclostyle room on the
lobby. This discrepancy relates to a material circumstance
of the prosecution case and assumes considerable
significance in evaluating the reliability of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution.
(xi) According to the prosecution’s case, after the arrest of the
appellant, the file relating to the complainant's posting (Exh.37)
containing the noting made by Shri C.N.Vani concerning the
complainant's posting, was seized from Ms.Gopinathan, an
officer in the department. It is significant to note that the said
file was not seized from the possession of the appellant at the
time of his arrest.
(a) The testimonies of the witnesses concerning the said
file disclose material inconsistency. The complainant, in
his deposition, has stated that at the time of seizure, the
file comprised of a total number of 52 pages, of which, page
No.32 contained his application for allotment of a quarter.
In contrast, the shadow witness (PW-1) Shri Satish
Page 17 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
Vasudevan Nair, in his deposition at Exh.33, has stated
that at the time of seizure, the file comprised of only 12
pages and not 52 pages, as stated by the complainant.
(b) This material discrepancy raises a serious doubt
whether the file, which was seized in the presence of the
shadow witness, comprised of only 12 pages, and whether
additional pages were inserted subsequently therein.
Significantly, the Investigating Officer, Shri Jitendra Singh,
in his deposition at Exhibit 78, has referred to the noting
made by Shri O.P.Khurana on pages 14 and 15 of the said
file. This circumstance assumes added significance in view
of the discrepancy concerning the number of pages
contained in the file at the time of its seizure and raises a
legitimate doubt as to whether additional pages were
incorporated into the file subsequently. The contradiction
cannot be brushed aside as a mere discrepancy, as it
raises a serious doubt regarding the integrity and
authenticity of the documentary evidence and lends
credence to the apprehension that additional pages might
have been inserted into the file subsequent to its seizure
pursuant to a deliberate design.
Page 18 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
(c) It is also noteworthy that the prosecution has not
examined two material witnesses, namely, Shri C.N.Vani
and Ms.Gopinathan. Their non-examination assumes
particular significance in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, especially when the number of pages in
the file at the time of its seizure and the integrity of the
document itself are matters of material dispute.
(xii) The Investigating Officer was not impartial. The noting
made by Shri O.P.Khurana on pages 14 & 15 of the file at
Exh.58 indicates that, on 02.11.1995, after the raid, the
Investigating Officer, Shri Jitendra Singh, had recommended
transfer of the complainant to Ahmedabad. This fact was
admitted by Shri O.P.Khurana in his cross-examination and was
also admitted by the complainant, Mr.Anton Dias, in his cross-
examination. It is noteworthy that there was no apparent reason
for the Investigating Officer, CBI, to take an interest in securing
the complainant's transfer to Ahmedabad. It is further
significant that, pursuant to the recommendation made by the
Investigating Officer, the complainant was, in fact, transferred to
Ahmedabad.
Page 19 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
(xiii) The sanction embodied in Exh.65, issued by the Chief
Personnel Officer, Shri Sanjay Surendrakumar Suri (PW-5),
appears to have been accorded mechanically and without due
application of mind. As borne out from the record, the sanction
letter was issued on 09.11.1995, the very day on which the FSL
report was received.
(a) A perusal of the original sanction letter further
reveals that, although the letter was prepared on an
electronic typewriter/computer, the name of the
department and its address appearing at the top of the
letter, the name of the officer appearing in the middle
portion of the letter, and the name and designation of the
officer appearing at the end of the letter which were kept
blank were subsequently filled in manually by a typewriter.
In his deposition at Exh.64, the said officer has stated that
he had read all the documents before according the
sanction. However, the complaint in the present case was
in the Gujarati language, and the officer admitted that he
could neither read nor write Gujarati.
Page 20 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
(b) In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the claim by
the sanctioning officer that he had read all the relevant
documents before according the sanction becomes
doubtful. The manner in which the original sanction letter
was prepared gives rise to a serious apprehension that the
sanction order had been prepared in advance and that the
requisite particulars which were kept blank were
subsequently filled in manually by a typewriter, and
thereafter the officer merely authenticated the document
by affixing his signature. These circumstances cast serious
doubt on whether the sanctioning authority had
independently considered the relevant material and applied
its mind to the facts of the case before according sanction.
Consequently, the sanction accorded vide Exh.65 cannot
be regarded as a valid sanction granted upon due
application of mind.
(xiv) The trial court, while appreciating the evidence, has laid
much emphasis on the provisions of Section 20 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, which raises presumption once it is
established that the accused accepted the amount. However, for
the purpose of arriving at the conclusion, whether the accused
Page 21 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
accepted the amount of illegal gratification or not, the totality of
the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial is required to be
appreciated. It is settled legal position of law that in the absence
of any proof of demand, the legal presumption under Section 20
of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not arise, since the
proof of demand and its subsequent acceptance is a sine qua non
for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, only on the basis of
acceptance of the amount without there being any proof of
demand, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act. It is submitted that the trial court, while
appreciating the evidence in this regard, has completely lost
sight of the aforesaid settled legal position. It is further
submitted that except the bare averments in the complaint, no
evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the essential
elements of the offence, more particularly, the proof of demand
of illegal gratification and its subsequent acceptance, beyond
reasonable doubt.
17. Thus, it is submitted that considering the entire evidence
on record, it clearly establishes that the prosecution has failed to
Page 22 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
prove the essential elements of the offence, viz. demand,
acceptance and recovery, beyond reasonable doubt, and in the
absence of proof of demand and its subsequent acceptance, the
trial court has committed a serious error in raising a
presumption under Section 20 of the Act. In such
circumstances, learned advocate Mr.Vin has implored the court
to allow the appeal preferred by the appellant-convict, set-aside
the impugned judgment and direct the acquittal of the appellant-
convict from the charges levelled against him.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE :
18. Vehemently opposing the appeal filed by the accused-
convict and the submissions canvassed by learned advocate
Mr.C.J.Vin appearing for the accused-convict, learned Special
Public Prosecutor Mr.R.C.Kodekar appearing for the Central
Bureau of Investigation has submitted that the trial court has
convicted the appellant-accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, and consequently, sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for two years along with the fine of Rs.2,000=00.
He has submitted that the prosecution has proved all the three
Page 23 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
essential elements of the offence, viz. demand, acceptance and
recovery, beyond reasonable doubt through cogent and
convincing evidence of the core witnesses, i.e. the complainant
(PW-2) Mr.Anton E.Dias, the shadow witness (PW-1) Shri Satish
Vasudevan Nair, and the trapping officer (PW-3) Shri
Sanjaykumar Ranvijaybahadur Singh. Learned Special Public
Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar has, therefore, urged that the conviction
recorded by the trial court does not call for any interference by
this Court and the criminal appeal preferred by the accused-
convict, challenging his conviction, may be dismissed.
19. Learned APP Ms.Patel, while adopting the arguments
canvassed by learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar for
the CBI, has submitted that since the evidence of the core
witnesses are clear, cogent and convincing, as well as, the same
remained unshaken and are in corroboration with the evidence
of the trapping officer and the allegations made by the
complainant, this Court may not interfere with the findings
recorded by the trial court in convicting the present appellant-
accused for the alleged offences. She has, therefore, urged that
the present appeal may be dismissed.
Page 24 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS :
20. Before adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, it would be apt to reiterate the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence as affirmed by the Supreme Court that,
in criminal trial it is for the prosecution to bring home the guilt
of the accused since the burden of proving the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt always rests upon the prosecution. It is also
settled that the prosecution has to stand on its own footings and
cannot take advantage or undue advantage of the defence put
forth by the accused. The Supreme Court, in the case of
Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa , reported in AIR
1977 SC 170 , reiterated three cardinal principles, namely, (i)
that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt, and it cannot derive any benefit
from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its
case; (ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and (iii) that the
onus of the prosecution never shifts. Thus, it is well-settled that
in criminal trial, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt in order to convict him.
Page 25 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
21. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
vs. Krishna Gopal , reported in (1988) 4 SCC 302 , has held that
the person has, no doubt, profound rights not to be convicted of
an offence, which is not established by the evidential standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt.
22. Bearing in mind the aforesaid legal position, this Court
has considered the submissions canvassed by the respective
parties and carefully perused the materials produced on record.
It is well-settled that for establishing the commission of an
offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the
proof of demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent
acceptance is sine qua non. Moreover, the presumption under
Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be invoked
only on proof of facts in issue, namely, the demand of illegal
gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof. The
Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj
Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) , reported in
(2023) 4 SCC 731 has, in paragraph-68 of the judgment, held as
under :
“68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under :
Page 26 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
(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.
(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.
(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.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant,
the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(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 of the Act. In such a case,
Page 27 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
there need not be a prior demand by the public
servant.
(ii) On the other hand, 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 is an offence under Section 13 (1)
(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, 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 under Section 7 or
Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring
home the offence, there must be an offer which
emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by
the public servant which would make it an offence.
Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when
accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a
payment made which is received by the public servant,
would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)
(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
Page 28 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand
and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may
be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when
the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral
and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof.
On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the
discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering
whether the fact of demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is
subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of
rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died
or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand
of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the
evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence,
either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution
can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does
not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the
accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the
proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to
raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the
purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said
Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court
as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course,
Page 29 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20
does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption of law under Section
20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to
above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption
while the latter is discretionary in nature.”
23. Thus, it is held by the Supreme Court that in order to
bring home the charge, the prosecution has to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the “demand of illegal gratification” and the
“subsequent acceptance” either by direct or by circumstantial
evidence.
24. The cases of corruption largely depends on the testimonies
of three crucial witnesses; (i) the complainant, (ii) the shadow
witness, and (iii) the trapping officer. These witnesses play a
decisive role in determining the fate of the accused. As such, the
testimonies of the complainant (PW-2) Mr.Anton E.Dias, the
shadow witness (PW-1) Shri Satish Vasudevan Nair, and the
trapping officer (PW-3) Shri Sanjaykumar Ranvijaybahadur
Singh, must be examined with great care and caution. It is
expected that their statements should be consistent, credible
Page 30 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
and of sterling quality. If there are significant contradictions in
their evidence on material aspects, such discrepancies cannot be
overlooked. In such circumstances where the evidence allows for
two possible interpretations, the one which favours the accused
must be considered. This is because the law firmly upholds the
principle that “ no innocent persons should be wrongfully
punished ”.
25. In light of the aforesaid settled principles of law and the
ratio laid down in the judgments referred to herein above, the
evidence adduced by the prosecution in the instant case must
now be scrutinized to determine, whether the prosecution has
successfully established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the
appellant-convict had demanded and accepted illegal
gratification from the complainant.
26. This Court has carefully and anxiously considered the
evidence on record. A meticulous scrutiny thereof reveals several
material inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
27. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant,
Mr.Anton Dias, was employed as a Khalasi in the CNU
Page 31 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
Department of the Railways since the year 1985. In the year
1994, while discharging his duties, he sustained injury on his
right eye, due to which he lost vision in his right eye.
Consequently, the Railway Screening Committee, by its decision
dated 05.06.1995, decided to retain him in service as a
Scaleman and transferred him from the Carriage Department to
the Traffic Department. It is the further case of the prosecution
that, when the complainant approached the appellant for
issuance of his posting order, the appellant demanded a sum of
Rs.500=00 from him towards the same.
27.1 It is pertinent to note that neither in the complaint
(Exh.42) nor in his deposition (Exh.41) the complainant has
disclosed the date, time or place when he approached the
appellant and the appellant had allegedly made initial demand
for illegal gratification from him. Thus, it is an undisputed fact
that there is no direct or indirect evidence on record to establish
the alleged initial demand for illegal gratification by the
appellant-convict.
28. So far as the foundational requirements of demand and
subsequent acceptance of illegal gratification are concerned, the
Page 32 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
evidence adduced by the prosecution does not inspire
confidence. The depositions of the three material witnesses,
namely, the complainant, the shadow witness and the trapping
officer, disclose material inconsistencies and contradictions on
significant aspects of the prosecution's case, thereby diminishing
the probative value of their testimonies and casting considerable
doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's version.
29. In the present case, the complainant, in his deposition,
without specifying the date, time or place of the alleged
occurrence, has stated that when he approached the appellant in
connection with his posting order, the appellant demanded a
bribe of Rs.500=00. He further deposed that when he again
contacted the appellant on 12.10.1995, the appellant told him
that his work would not be done unless he paid the money and
asked him to bring the same on 17.10.1995. Significantly, the
complainant had not lodged any complaint during the
intervening four days.
29.1 The record further reveals material contradictions
regarding the date, authorship and place of preparation of the
original complaint. The complainant, Mr.Anton Dias (PW-2),
Page 33 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
deposed that on 16.10.1995, he had personally written the
complaint in his own handwriting and submitted it to the CBI
office at Ahmedabad. He categorically deposed that he had
prepared the complaint himself in his own handwriting,
independently and without any dictation from anyone. In
contrast, the trapping officer, Shri Sanjaykumar Singh (PW-3),
has deposed that on 16.10.1995, the complainant narrated the
facts of the complaint to him, whereupon he reduced the same
into writing. More significantly, the shadow witness, Shri Satish
Vasudevan Nair, in his deposition at Exh.33, has stated that on
17.10.1995 at the IPCL Guest House, Vadodara, the complainant
had narrated the facts constituting the complaint in the
presence of the panch-witnesses, whereupon the complaint was
reduced into writing and then the signatures of both the panch-
witnesses were obtained on it.
29.2 Thus, the depositions of the three core witnesses, namely,
the complainant, the shadow witness and the trapping officer,
disclose material contradictions regarding the date on which the
original complaint was prepared, the person who prepared it,
and the place where it was drawn up. These discrepancies
pertain to the very genesis of the prosecution's case and give rise
Page 34 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
to serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution's
version.
30. At this stage, in the context of the prosecution's allegation
that the appellant had demanded bribe in connection with the
issuance of the complainant's posting order, it becomes
imperative to examine, whether the appellant was authorized to
deal with the said work, or involved and connected, in any
manner, with the processing thereof.
30.1 In this regard, the testimony of Shri Kanchanlal
Madhobhai Vasawa (PW-4), who was then serving as Office
Superintendent at the D.R.M. Office, Western Railway,
Pratapnagar, Baroda, assumes considerable significance. In his
deposition at Exh.52, he has categorically stated that the
complainant's posting case was to be dealt with by Shri
C.N.Vani, and that on the date of the incident, in the absence of
Shri Vani, the matter was dealt with by ACM Shri Omprakash
Khurana. The witness further identified the noting and
signatures of Shri Vani and Shri Khurana appearing on the
complainant's posting file, marked as Exh.37. More significantly,
in the course of his cross-examination, he has categorically
Page 35 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
admitted that neither the said file nor the relevant documents
forming part of Exh.58 carried the signature or handwriting of
the appellant at any place.
30.2 In the same context, the testimony of Shri Omprakash
Khurana (PW-6) assumes significance. In his deposition at
Exh.73, he has stated that, on the date of the incident, the
appellant had come to meet him; however, the appellant had not
shown any file to him. More significantly, during his cross-
examination, he has categorically admitted that the
complainant's file was being dealt with by Shri Vani, who was
serving in the Establishment Department at the relevant point of
time. In these circumstances, it is pertinent to note that the
prosecution has, for reasons best known to it, chosen not to
examine Shri Vani, a material witness who was directly
concerned with the processing of the complainant's posting file.
30.3 Considering the aforesaid clear evidence on record, it
becomes apparent that the appellant-convict had no connection
whatsoever with the work in question and, therefore, he had no
reason to demand bribe in relation to the said work. The file
concerning the complainant’s posting was being dealt with by
Page 36 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
Shri Vani, who was absent on the date of the incident. However,
there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that Shri Vani was
absent on 12.10.1995. Considering the said fact, the
complainant’s assertion that the appellant-convict demanded
bribe upon meeting him on 12.10.1995 in connection with his
posting does not appear to be credible.
31. This Court has examined the evidence of the three core
witnesses with particular reference to the place where the
appellant allegedly demanded the bribe in the presence of the
shadow witness, the place where the alleged bribe was accepted,
and the place where the said amount was recovered from the
appellant. A careful appraisal of their respective testimonies
reveals material inconsistencies and contradictions on these
crucial aspects, thereby casting serious doubt upon the
prosecution case as a whole.
31.1 As this Court has already observed herein above that the
evidence of these three core witnesses is determinative of the fate
of the accused, such evidence must not only be unambiguous
and of sterling quality, but must also be of such unimpeachable
quality as to inspire complete confidence in its probative value.
Page 37 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
31.2 In this backdrop, a comparative scrutiny of the respective
testimonies of the three core witnesses assumes significance,
more particularly, with regard to the divergent versions emerging
from their depositions concerning the demand for the bribe
amount, its acceptance, and its recovery.
32. As noticed herein above, the complainant, Mr.Anton Dias,
has not furnished any particulars as to when the appellant
initially demanded the alleged bribe amount from him. Further,
the complainant's assertion that, on 12.10.1995, the appellant
reiterated his demand that unless the money is paid, his work
would not be done, remains unsupported by any other direct or
indirect evidence on record.
33. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant
lodged the complaint on 16.10.1995 and that the trap was laid
on the following day, i.e. on 17.10.1995, and on the same day,
phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes
intended to be tendered as the alleged bribe, and thereafter, the
tainted notes were placed in the upper pocket of the
complainant's shirt. According to the prosecution case, upon
Page 38 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
completion of the first part of the panchnama, the complainant,
the panch-witnesses and the members of the raiding party
proceeded to the DRM Office at Pratapnagar, Vadodara, at about
11:00 a.m. However, the appellant was not found at the office,
and the raiding party learnt that he had gone to Vadodara
Railway Station. Consequently, the complainant, the panch-
witnesses and the members of the raiding party proceeded to the
railway station.
33.1 In his deposition at Exh.41, the complainant (PW-2)
Mr.Anton Dias, has stated that when he and the shadow witness
reached at the Vadodara Railway Station and met the appellant,
the appellant asked the complainant in Hindi, saying that,
" Maine bataya tha, woh intezam ho gaya hai ? Paise ka intezam
ho gaya hai ?" (Has the arrangement been made for what I had
told you about? Has the money been arranged?), to which the
complainant replied saying that, " Jaise-taise karke main Rs.500
lekar aaya hoon " (I have somehow managed to bring Rs.500).
The complainant has further deposed that the appellant had
declined to accept the money at the railway station, and instead,
instructed him to come to his office after two days.
Subsequently, the complainant, along with the members of the
Page 39 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
raiding party, returned to the IPCL Guest House, where the
tainted currency notes were taken out from the complainant's
pocket, placed the same in a cover and sealed. The trapping
officer and the panch-witness, thereafter, affixed their respective
signatures on the sealed cover. It is pertinent to note that the
prosecution did not produce the said sealed cover bearing the
respective signatures of the trapping officer and the panch-
witness before the trial court.
33.2 The complainant (PW-2) further stated in his deposition
that, on 19.10.1995, when he along with the shadow witness,
again visited the appellant's office, he came out of his office and
asked them to meet after some time. Later on, the appellant
came with the complainant’s posting file and suggested them to
go to the office of Shri Khurana. However, leaving behind the
complainant and the shadow witness to wait outside, the
appellant proceeded to the chamber of Shri Khurana, and after
approximately five to ten minutes, the appellant returned and
asked the complainant and the shadow witness to come back at
3:00 p.m. Accordingly, at about 3:00 to 4:00 p.m., the
complainant and the shadow witness again went to the
appellant's office. Thereafter, the appellant came out on the
Page 40 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
lobby and again enquired whether they brought the money. So,
the complainant replied in the affirmative and tendered the
tainted currency notes to the appellant near the cyclostyle room
on the lobby. The appellant accepted the notes, counted and
placed them in the wallet on the rear pocket of his trouser.
Thereafter, the appellant returned to his office and resumed his
seat. Subsequently, upon the complainant passing the
prearranged signal, the members of the raiding party arrived at
the office and recovered the bribe amount through the panch
no.2 from the wallet kept in the rear pocket of the appellant's
trouser, within the appellant's office itself.
33.3 Thus, according to the complainant, after accepting the
bribe amount near the cyclostyle room on the lobby, the
appellant returned to his office and resumed his seat. It was only
thereafter, upon the complainant passing the prearranged
signal, that the members of the raiding party entered the
appellant's office and recovered the tainted currency notes from
his wallet. It is significant to note that the wallet from which the
tainted currency notes were recovered was not subjected to any
test to ascertain the presence of phenolphthalein powder. It is
noteworthy that neither the statement of any employee working
Page 41 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
in the appellant's office was recorded, nor any such employee
was examined as a witness.
34. At this stage, it becomes necessary to consider the
testimony of the shadow witness Shri Satish Vasudevan Nair
(PW-1) who, in his deposition at Exh.33, has tried to corroborate
the complainant's version of the incident. However, it is
noteworthy that his narration of the events places the alleged
transaction at a particular place. According to him, at about
3:00 p.m., when he and the complainant met the appellant in his
office, the appellant enquired whether the complainant had
brought the money. Thereafter, the complainant and the shadow
witness came out on the lobby, and the appellant followed them.
All the three then entered the adjoining room housing the
cyclostyle machine, where the appellant asked the complainant
to hand over the bribe amount. The complainant accordingly
tendered the tainted currency notes, which the appellant
accepted and placed in a wallet kept in the rear pocket of his
trouser.
34.1 The shadow witness further deposed that upon the
complainant passing the prearranged signal, the members of the
Page 42 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
raiding party arrived at the spot and instructed the appellant to
remain in the same position. The appellant's hands were
thereafter washed in a solution of sodium carbonate for the
purpose of ascertaining the presence of phenolphthalein powder,
and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the wallet
through panch no.2. Thus, as per the testimony of the shadow
witness, after the demand for illegal gratification made by the
appellant-accused at his office, the subsequent acceptance of the
bribe amount and the recovery of the tainted currency notes
occurred at the entrance to the room housing the cyclostyle
machine.
34.2 Thus, a serious doubt arises whether the entire sequence
of events relating to the alleged demand for the bribe, its
subsequent acceptance and the recovery thereof, took place in
the room housing the cyclostyle machine, situated on the lobby
at some distance from the appellant's office, or whether the
demand for and acceptance of the bribe amount occurred on the
lobby near the cyclostyle room, whereas, the subsequent
recovery took place inside the appellant's office. It is significant
to note that the prosecution has offered no satisfactory
explanation for the inconsistent and contradictory evidence
Page 43 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
brought on record in this regard.
35. It is the case of the prosecution that after the arrest of the
appellant, the trapping officer Shri Sanjaykumar Singh seized
the file pertaining to the complainant's posting from
Ms.Gopinathan, an officer in the department. The said file
assumes considerable significance as the same contains noting
made by various officers in their own handwriting and bearing
their respective signatures, on different dates, in the course of
the proceedings relating to the complainant's posting. The said
file was brought on record as Exh.37 through the deposition of
the shadow witness, Shri Satish Vasudevan Nair (PW-1). A
comprehensive evaluation of the prosecution evidence pertaining
to the said file brings to light several striking facts which emerge
from the record.
35.1 At the outset, it is significant to note that, according to the
prosecution’s case, on the date of the incident, the appellant had
gone to the chamber of Shri Khurana with the file pertaining to
the complainant's posting. However, the said file was not
recovered from the possession of the appellant. As per the
testimony of the trapping officer, Shri Sanjaykumar Singh (PW-
Page 44 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
3), the file was seized from Ms.Gopinathan, an officer in the
department. Upon perusal of the file produced on record as
Exh.37, it is evident that a noting “1 to 52” appears on the first
page. During his deposition, the complainant, Mr.Anton Dias
(PW-2), upon being shown the said file, identified the same and
stated that it comprised of fifty-two pages, and at page 32 his
application seeking allotment of a quarter was there.
35.2 Significantly, Shri Satish Vasudevan Nair (PW-1), in whose
deposition the said file came to be produced before the trial
court, categorically stated that, at the time when the file was
seized in his presence, it did not contain fifty-two pages and
comprised only twelve pages. When, according to the prosecution
itself, this witness remained present at the spot throughout the
trap proceedings in his capacity as a shadow witness, and the
entire proceedings were conducted in his continuous presence,
this discrepancy assumes considerable significance. It raises the
possibility that material documents might have been
subsequently inserted in the file after its seizure. This
circumstance gives rise to a serious doubt regarding the
prosecution’s case and lends support to the appellant's defence
that he was falsely implicated pursuant to a conspiracy.
Page 45 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
36. It is pertinent to observe that the prosecution has also
chosen not to examine Shri C.N.Vani, who was directly
associated with the processing of the complainant's file, and
Ms.Gopinathan, from whose possession the said file was seized
by the trapping officer. Both were material witnesses whose
testimony was of considerable relevance to the present case.
Their non-examination assumes added significance in view of the
controversy surrounding the number of pages forming part of the
file at the time of its seizure, more particularly, when the same
has a direct bearing on the integrity and the authenticity of the
document sought to be relied upon by the prosecution.
37. The defence has contended that the sanction order
produced in the present case was accorded without application
of mind and, therefore, the same cannot be regarded as a legal
and valid sanction. In this regard, this Court has carefully
scrutinized the deposition of the Sanctioning Authority, namely,
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Shri Sanjay Surendrakumar
Suri (PW-5), the original sanction order at Exhibit 65, and the
entire evidence on record.
Page 46 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
37.1 The record reveals that after the trap proceedings, the
investigation was entrusted to the then CBI Inspector Shri
Jitendra Singh (PW-8), who recorded the statements of the
necessary witnesses, and upon receipt of the FSL report, he
obtained the sanction for prosecution from the Senior Divisional
Personnel Officer and thereafter filed the charge-sheet.
Significantly, the FSL report was received by the Investigating
Officer on 09.11.1995 and the sanction order was prepared on
the very same day.
37.2 Upon careful examination of the sanction order, it is
evident that the same was prepared in advance and the requisite
particulars, viz. the name of the department and its address
appearing at the top of the letter, the name of the officer
appearing in the middle portion of the letter, and the name and
designation of the officer appearing at the end of the letter,
which were kept blank were subsequently filled in manually by a
typewriter, upon receipt of the FSL report, and thereafter, the
officer concerned merely sign the order. Therefore, these
circumstances cast serious doubt on whether the sanctioning
authority had independently considered the relevant material
and applied its mind to the facts of the case before according
Page 47 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
sanction.
37.3 It is further pertinent to note that the Sanctioning
Authority Shri Sanjay Suri categorically deposed that he was
unable to read or write Gujarati, whereas the complaint lodged
by the complainant before the CBI, Ahmedabad, was admittedly
in Gujarati. During his cross-examination, he further stated that
he could not recollect when he had received the case papers from
the CBI, and whether he had perused the complaint, or whether
the same was in Gujarati or English. He has also admitted that
after receiving the case papers, he had not discussed the same
with any other officer in his department.
37.4 Having carefully considered all the aforesaid facts and
circumstances borne out from the record, this Court is unable to
arrive at a definite conclusion that the sanction for prosecution
was accorded upon proper examination of all the relevant
documents and due application of mind.
CONCLUSION :
38. Thus, upon a cumulative consideration of the evidence on
Page 48 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
record, several significant infirmities emerge in the prosecution's
case which cannot be overlooked. The process concerning the
complainant’s posting was within the administrative domain of
Shri C.N.Vani, who had custody of the relevant file. It is
pertinent to note that, on the date of the incident, the file was
recovered from Ms.Gopinathan and not from the appellant. The
discrepancies concerning the number and nature of documents
contained therein, more particularly, the possibility of
subsequent insertion of documents into the file that initially
comprised only of twelve pages, lend considerable support to the
defence plea of false implication pursuant to a conspiracy.
38.1 Significantly, the file bears neither any noting, initial or
signature of the appellant, nor is there any evidence establishing
his involvement in the complainant's posting. The absence of any
such nexus substantially undermines the allegation of demand.
This is further borne out from the testimony of Shri Kanchanlal
Vasawa (PW-4), who categorically stated that, in the absence of
Shri C.N.Vani, the complainant's matter was dealt with by Shri
Khurana (PW-6), and not by the appellant. Therefore, there was
no occasion for the appellant to demand illegal gratification from
the complainant regarding his posting.
Page 49 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
38.2 The credibility of the prosecution's case is further
undermined by the fact that the testimony of the core witnesses
regarding the entire sequence of events relating to the alleged
demand, its acceptance and recovery of the bribe money, as well
as the precise place of occurrence, are mutually inconsistent and
materially contradictory. These discrepancies strike at the very
root of the prosecution's case and render its version of events
highly doubtful. Furthermore, the prosecution's failure to
examine Shri C.N.Vani and Ms.Gopinathan, both material
witnesses, result in suppressing the evidence on crucial aspects
of the case.
38.3 Equally significant is the Investigating Officer's subsequent
intervention in recommending the complainant's posting at
Ahmedabad, despite having no connection whatsoever with the
administrative affairs of the Railways. The consequential noting
in the posting file and the complainant's eventual posting at
Ahmedabad raises serious doubt regarding the
impartiality/neutrality of the Investigating Officer and the
fairness of the investigation.
Page 50 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
38.4 Furthermore, when the prosecution evidence itself is
doubtful with regard to the alleged demand, its subsequent
acceptance and recovery, as well as, the precise place of
occurrence, it cannot be said that the foundational facts
necessary to attract the statutory presumption have been
established beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances,
the trial court fell in error in invoking the presumption under
Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, without the
prosecution having first established the requisite foundational
facts.
39. The Supreme Court, in the case of Mallappa vs. State Of
Karnataka , reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544, has held thus :-
“26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a
criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The two-
views theory has been judicially recognized by the Courts
and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence
results into two equally plausible views. However, the
controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For,
the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of
innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in
the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the
presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views
are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the
accused is the safest course of action….”
Page 51 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
40. In view of the aforesaid, and considering the discrepancies
in the evidence of the three core witnesses regarding the
acceptance of the illegal gratification, when two views are
possible, certainly, the one in favour of innocence of the accused,
must be considered.
41. Thus, on examination of the entire evidence, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to
establish beyond reasonable doubt, the essential element of
demand of bribe and the subsequent acceptance of illegal
gratification.
42. Since the prosecution has failed in establishing the
foundational fact by leading cogent and convincing evidence
regarding the aspect of demand and its subsequent acceptance
beyond reasonable doubt, the question of presumption under
Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not arise in
the present case.
43. In view of the aforesaid discussion and re-appreciation of
the entire evidence on record, the Court is of the considered
Page 52 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
opinion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence and
the trial court has not appreciated the entire evidence in its true
perspective.
44. Before parting with the judgment, it would be apt to
reiterate the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence as
affirmed by the highest court that, in criminal trial it is for the
prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused since the
burden of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt always
rests upon the prosecution. It is also settled that the prosecution
has to stand on its own footings and cannot take advantage or
undue advantage of the defence put forth by the accused.
45. As noted earlier, the Supreme Court, in the case of
Rabindra Kumar Dey (supra), has reiterated three cardinal
principles, namely, (i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the
prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and it
cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence
version while proving its case; (ii) that in a criminal trial the
accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to
be guilty; and (iii) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts.
Page 53 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
46. Keeping in mind the cardinal principles of the criminal
jurisprudence as stated herein above and considering the
evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that
in the instant case it cannot be said that the prosecution has
proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and
convincing evidence and, therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in
favour of the appellant-accused. Thus, it appears that the trial
court has made an error while convicting the present appellant
for the alleged offence and, therefore, interference by this Court
is warranted.
47. In the result, the appeal preferred by the accused-convict
succeeds, and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
06.12.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.4
(Special) for C.B.I. Cases, at Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, in
Special (C.B.I.) Case No.58 of 1995, is hereby quashed and set-
aside.
48. Bail bonds stand cancelled. The amount of fine, if any, paid
by the accused-convict shall be refunded to the appellants-
Page 54 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2232/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240385392004)
accused. Records and proceedings be returned to the trial court
forthwith.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.)
/MOINUDDIN
Page 55 of 55
Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 01:02:03 IST 2026