NILESHPURI KAILASHPURI GOSWAMI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 15376 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
======================================================
NILESHPURI KAILASHPURI GOSWAMI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
======================================================
Appearance:
MR RASESH H PARIKH(3862) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.HEMANG H PARIKH(2628) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. K.M. ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 13/07/2026
JUDGMENT
A] PRELUDE :
1. Rule , fixed forthwith. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent –
State.
2. The present application is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying to
quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No. 11194075240001
of 2024, registered with ACB Police Station, Gir-Somnath on
Page 1 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
05.01.2024 for the offence under Sections 7A, 12, 13(1) and
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (PC
Act) and Sections 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC).
B] FACTUAL MATRIX :
3. Filtering the unnecessary details, the case of the
prosecution is that on 30.12.2023, a decoy trap was arranged
by the Police Inspector, Gir-Somnath ACB Police Station in the
presence of independent Panchas at the Mandavi (Ghoghla)
Police Check Post, Una. During the trap, one Nilesh Abhesing
Tadvi came to be apprehended and his mobile phone was
seized. Upon examination of the audio files stored therein,
conversations between him and the police personnel posted at
the Mandavi Check Post were found, from which it was
revealed that the present applicant, namely Nileshbhai K.
Goswami, was instructing him to hand over the money
collected as illegal gratification by the police personnel
deputed at the check post during the day. It is further alleged
that the applicant also used to call for contraband articles.
Said Nilesh Abhesing Tadvi also admitted before the panch
witnesses that huge amounts of illegal gratification were being
collected from the passers-by at the check post and, in case if
the payment was not made in cash, the amount used to be
collected through digital mode. Thus, it is alleged that all the
accused, in connivance with each other, committed the alleged
offence for which FIR in question came to be registered against
Page 2 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
them.
C] SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPECTIVE
PARTIES :
4. Heard, learned Senior Counsel Mr. H. M. Parikh,
assisted by Mr. H. H. Parikh for the applicant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.
4.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr. H. M. Parikh for the
applicant submits that there is not a single averment against
the present applicant so far as the allegations regarding
demand, acceptance, and recovery are concerned. He submits
that on the alleged date of the raid, the present applicant was
not physically present at the place of occurrence. Therefore,
the question of demand, acceptance, and recovery does not
arise, which are sine qua non for attracting the provisions of
Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. It is submitted that there is
no incriminating evidence against the present applicant nor
has any witness named him so as to implicate him in the
alleged offence. The FIR itself is based on the statement of the
co-accused namely Nilesh Tadvi and the so-called transcripts
obtained from the two mobile phones of the said co-accused.
Even those transcripts do not establish any alleged demand at
the instance of the present applicant. It is further submitted
that even from a plain reading of the FIR, there is no allegation
of demand as such. He submitted that, as the decoy trap
itself was unsuccessful, the very initiation of the proceedings
Page 3 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
under the PC Act cannot be sustained.
4.2 The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant further
submits that the foundational facts relating to demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification are required to be
established either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence failing which no conviction under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act can be recorded. In support of
the said submission, reliance is placed upon a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 . Learned Senior Counsel argues
that mere acceptance or receipt of illegal gratification, without
anything more, would not constitute an offence under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Even assuming,
for the sake of argument, that the applicant had accepted or
received any illegal gratification, then too there is nothing on
record in the entire charge-sheet which, prima facie ,
establishes the commission of the alleged offences by the
present applicant.
4.3 The learned Senior Counsel further relies upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State through
Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors., (1999) 5 SCC
253 , with regard to the ingredients required for attracting
Section 120A of the IPC relating to criminal conspiracy. It is
submitted that there is not an iota of evidence to establish
that the present applicant intended or agreed that the alleged
offence be committed. Mere entertaining of a wish or suspicion
Page 4 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
cannot constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy.
4.4 The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant further
submits that even from the sequence of events which took
place during the unsuccessful decoy trap, as well as from the
material collected during the course of investigation, the
present applicant is neither directly nor indirectly connected
with the alleged offence. No act of omission or commission
attributable to the present applicant has been brought on
record against the police personnel found at the check-post.
Under such circumstances, no criminal liability can be
fastened upon the present applicant.
4.5 It is further submitted that the statements of the
members of the raiding party recorded in connection with the
unsuccessful decoy trap do not connect the present applicant
either directly or indirectly with the alleged offence. Most of
the witnesses, and more particularly the role attributed to the
present applicant, surfaces only in the FIR, which itself is
based upon the statement of the co-accused. Such statement
cannot be used against the present applicant, particularly
when, there is no independent evidence establishing his
involvement.
4.6 The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
allegation regarding transfer of money to some unknown
persons through Google Pay or UPI, followed by withdrawal of
cash and handing over the same to co-accused Nilesh Tadvi,
Page 5 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
at the highest, implicates Nileshkumar Tadvi alone and not
the present applicant. Therefore, such statements are of no
assistance so far as the complicity of the present applicant is
concerned.
4.7 So far as telephone transcripts recovered from the mobile
phone of co-accused Nilesh Tadvi are concerned, it is
submitted that the same do not implicate the present
applicant in any manner. There is nothing in the said
transcripts to indicate any demand or acceptance of illegal
gratification by the present applicant. On the contrary, what
emerges from the material on record is that the applicant had
attempted to intervene regarding the amount, allegedly
collected by said Nilesh Tadvi. Thus, no offence, as alleged in
the FIR, can be said to have been committed by the present
applicant.
4.8 The learned Senior Counsel further submits that not a
single victim or witness has alleged that the present applicant
demanded, accepted, or recovered any pecuniary advantage.
In such circumstances, even the provisions of Section 7A of
the PC Act are not attracted.
4.9 The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
prosecution has recorded statements of nearly 17 independent
witnesses, whose evidence do not implicate the present
applicant either directly or indirectly. Likewise, seven police
witnesses forming part of the raiding party, have also failed to
Page 6 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
implicate the applicant in any manner. It is submitted that
even the so-called victim witnesses namely, PW Nos. 50, 51,
53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
and 71, merely describe incidents which allegedly took place
prior to the registration of the offence. A perusal of their
statements does not disclose any material connecting the
present applicant, either directly or indirectly, with the alleged
offences. Therefore, the applicant cannot be compelled to face
trial on the basis of such bald and omnibus statements.
4.10 The learned Senior Counsel further submits that none of
the witnesses has stated anything with regard to the decoy
trap conducted on 23.12.2023. The so-called witnesses have
merely narrated incidents preceding the decoy trap, which are
wholly unconnected with the alleged offence.
4.11 The learned Senior Counsel further submits that even
the digital voice recordings collected during the decoy trap fail
to establish the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance,
and recovery of illegal gratification, particularly when,
admittedly no money transaction had taken place on
23.12.2023. It is further submitted that the conversations
found in the two contacts saved as "Guruji" and "Guru-2",
allegedly used by the present applicant, do not disclose either
the date or the time at which such conversations took place.
More importantly, the transcripts do not contain any
incriminating material suggesting that the alleged money was
collected by co-accused Nilesh Tadvi at the behest of the
Page 7 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
present applicant. Therefore, the FSL Report comparing the
spectrography of the voice samples would be of no assistance
to the prosecution. It is submitted that even the statement of
PW-14, Husainbhai Habibbhai Shaikh, who has stated that
the alleged bribe amount was received through Google Pay,
thereafter, withdrawn in cash, and handed over to Nilesh
Tadvi, does not implicate the present applicant in any manner
whatsoever.
4.12 Making above submissions, the learned Senior Counsel
prays that the present application may be allowed.
4.13 In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for
the applicant has placed reliance upon the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani
v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 441; M. R.
Harshe v. State of Gujarat, 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 237532;
and State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr.
Anup Kumar Srivastava, (2017) 15 SCC 560. Additionally,
the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the absence of
any foundational facts attracting the provisions of the PC Act,
the present case would squarely fall within the parameters
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335 , and
thus, he urged that the present application deserves to be
allowed.
5. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.
Page 8 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
M. Antani submitted that the decisions relied upon by the
learned Senior Counsel for the applicant are distinguishable
on facts and would have no application to the present case. It
is submitted that there is sufficient prima facie material on
record indicating the complicity of the present applicant in the
alleged offence. He submitted that merely because the
applicant was not physically present at the place of the decoy
trap, cannot absolve him of the criminal liability when there is
material connecting him with the alleged offence.
5.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
various complaints were received pursuant to the decoy trap
and that the transcripts prepared from the mobile phone
recovered from co-accused Nilesh Tadvi reveal conversations
regarding collection of money, prima facie indicating that, at
the behest of the present applicant, the co-accused were
collecting illegal gratification from passengers passing through
the police check-post under one pretext or the other. Such
allegations are also supported by the statements of Sattarbhai,
Suhailbhai Sabbirbhai Badarkhan, Bhaveshbhai Chauhan,
Hussain Shaikh and other witnesses. It is further submitted
that the FSL Voice Spectrography Report confirms that voice
sample of the present applicant matches the intercepted
conversations and, therefore, the foundational facts
constituting the alleged offences are prima facie established
from the transcripts, witness statements, and the FSL Report.
5.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further
Page 9 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
submitted that the question of conspiracy is a mixed question
of fact and law which can only be adjudicated during trial.
Merely because the applicant was not present during the
decoy trap would not negate his complicity, particularly when
Section 7A of the PC Act would also be attracted if another
person attempts to obtain an undue advantage on behalf of a
public servant. It is, therefore, submitted that the present
case does not fall within the parameters laid down in the case
of Bhajan Lal (supra) , and the application deserves to be
rejected.
5.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further invited
the attention of this Court to the transcripts and the
statements forming part of the Charge-sheet and submitted
that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial. The Court is
only required to examine whether the allegations in the FIR,
taken at their face value along with the material collected
during investigation, disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence. It is further submitted that it is not the applicant's
case that the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala
fides nor can the allegations in the FIR be said to be so absurd
or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach
a conclusion that sufficient grounds exist for proceeding
against the applicant.
5.4 According to the prosecution, a strong prima facie case is
made out on the basis of the complaints received pursuant to
Page 10 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
the decoy trap,, the transcripts recovered from the mobile
phone of co-accused Nilesh Tadvi, the statements recorded
during investigation, and the FSL Report confirming the voice
of the present applicant. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor also placed reliance upon the judgment in State
by Lokayukta Police v. Rangaya (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 587)
and accordingly, prayed that the present application may be
rejected.
D] ISSUES:
6. FOLLOWING ISSUES ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION:
6.1 Whether, applying the case of Bhajan Lal standards,
the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet materials,
taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence against
the applicant warranting continuation of proceedings more
particularly when demand, acceptance and recovery are
foundation for attracting Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act?
6.2 Whether the absence of an allegation of physical
presence at the decoy trap, or the asserted lack of direct
demand/acceptance/recovery by the applicant, mandates
quashing at this stage?
6.3 Whether offence under section 7A and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act made out?
6.4 Whether the reliance on decisions in Neeraj Dutta,
Nalini, Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava , Dileepbhai
Nanubhai Sanghani, and M. R. Harshe, (supra) compel
Page 11 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
quashing in the present factual matrix?
E] APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES & CITED
JUDGEMENTS:
7. The jurisdiction under Section 482 is extraordinary and
must be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only when the
allegations, even if taken at face value and accepted in
entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or where the
allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person could reach such a conclusion. This principle
is too well settled to require restatement, but finds canonical
expression in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp.
(1) SCC 335 , where the Supreme Court delineated categories
where quashing is permissible. However, the factual disputes
and appreciation of evidence are for trial Court to decide.
7.1 The Supreme Court in Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava
(supra) held that the proof of demand has been held to be an
indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an
offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act which was
found absent in the said case. However, the facts of the case
on hand are different and in the course of the judgement will
point out how.
7.2 In Neeraj Dutta (supra) , the Supreme Court addressed
the evidentiary requirements for proving demand and
acceptance in corruption cases, particularly in the context of
Page 12 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
official witnesses and the standard of proof. However, that
decision primarily governs the stage of proof at trial and the
evaluation of evidence; it does not mandate that, at the
threshold, the absence of a specific overt allegation of
“demand” in the FIR would necessarily extinguish a prima
facie case where other materials (including intercepted
communications, witness statements, and forensic reports)
collectively indicate the applicant’s alleged role in the scheme
of illegal gratification.
7.3 As regards conspiracy, decision in Nalini (supra) , lays
down that criminal conspiracy requires an agreement to
commit an offence, but the existence of such agreement is
often inferred from surrounding circumstances and conduct.
The question whether the alleged conversations and
instructions amount to an agreement is a factual inquiry
inappropriate for determination at the quashing stage.
7.4 The recent decisions in Dileepbhai Nanubhai
Sanghani and M. R. Harshe, (supra) , must be read in their
own factual contexts. Where the material on record, including
voice spectrography and corroborative statements, prima facie
connects the accused to the alleged collection and routing of
illegal gratification, the threshold for continuation of
proceedings is met, and quashing is unwarranted.
F] ANALYSIS AND REASONS:
Page 13 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
I) Prima Facie Case and the “Mini-Trial” Bar :
8. At the Section 482 stage, the Court does not weigh
evidence or decide disputed questions of fact. The proper
inquiry is whether the allegations, as they stand, disclose a
cognizable offence. Here, the FIR and the charge-sheet
materials collectively allege: (i) intercepted conversations
indicating instructions by the applicant to hand over monies
collected as illegal gratification; (ii) statements of multiple
witnesses (to name a few: Sattarbhai, Suhailbhai
Sabbirbhai Badarkhan, Bhaveshbhai Chauhan, Hussain
Shaikh) supporting the scheme of collection and routing of
funds; and (iii) an FSL Voice Spectrography Report matching
the applicant’s voice to the intercepted conversations.
8.1 Whether these materials ultimately prove the offences is
a matter for trial. To require, at this stage, a definitive proof of
“demand” in the precise form suggested by the applicant
would convert the quashing proceeding into a mini-trial,
contrary to Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava (supra) and the
settled scheme of Bhajan Lal (supra) .
II) Presence of the applicant at the time of Decoy Trap
Is Not Dispositive:
8.2 The applicant’s non-presence at the decoy trap, by itself,
does not exonerate him if the materials suggest he
Page 14 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
orchestrated or facilitated the collection of illegal gratification
through others. The allegations include instructions via
intercepted communications and the alleged use of digital
modes to collect and later convert funds to cash, which were
then handed over to the co-accused. Such allegations, if
proved, would squarely fall within the ambit of Sections 7A,
12, 13 of the PC Act and Section 120B IPC. The primary
argument advanced for the applicant is that because there is
no evidence of a direct, physical demand or recovery of
currency from his person, the prosecution must fail under the
rule established in Neeraj Dutta (supra) . This argument,
while structurally sound in isolation, misinterprets the nature
of the charges applied here. The applicant is not charged
solely with a localized, individual act of bribery under Section
7A; he is charged alongside co-accused persons under Section
120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC and Section 12
(Abetment) of the PC Act. Criminal conspiracy is rarely proved
via open, direct evidence. By its very nature, it is planned in
privacy and executed through unspoken understandings or
remote communications, which in the present case is evident
from the investigation and thus complicity of the applicant in
the alleged crime strongly and prima facie surfaces on record.
III) Presence of Definitive Foundational Facts vs. Mere
Suspicion:
8.3 In Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani and Dr. Anup
Kumar Srivastava, (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Page 15 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
quashed criminal proceedings because the records lacked
foundational facts. In those cases, the implication of the
accused rested on pure assumption, vague third-party
references, or administrative proximity without any
incriminating nexus.
8.4 The present case stands on an entirely different footing.
The prosecution has not built its case on mere administrative
suspicion. It has brought on record:
8.4.1 An FSL Voice Spectrography Report that
forensically matches the voice of the applicant to the
intercepted audio recordings under the names "Guruji" and
"Guru-2".
8.4.2 Direct content within those transcripts where the
applicant is heard giving operational directives to manage,
split, and deliver the extorted cash.
8.4.3 Independent corroboration via the digital UPI logs of
intermediate witnesses (PW-14 Hussain Shaikh).
8.4.4 This forensic and digital trail provides the precise
"foundational facts" and "criminal consensus" required to
sustain a charge under Section 120B of the IPC and Section
12 of the Act.
IV) Conspiracy and Inference from Circumstances:
8.5 As held in Nalini (supra) , conspiracy is often established
by inference from the totality of circumstances. The alleged
instructions to hand over collected monies, the pattern of
Page 16 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
digital collections, and the voice match in the FSL Report, if
accepted in the prosecution’s favour, provide a prima facie
basis to infer an agreement to commit the offences. Whether
such inference is sustainable is a factual question for trial, not
for quashing proceedings. As established by the Supreme
Court and reinforced across decades of jurisprudence, it is not
necessary that every conspirator participate in every single
overt act, nor must they be physically present at the scene of
the crime.
V) Applicability of Bhajan Lal’s Case:
8.6 Bhajan Lal’s case permits quashing where the
allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any
offence, or where the allegations are so absurd or inherently
improbable that no prudent person could proceed. The
present case does not fall into either category. The materials,
taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case of illegal
gratification collected at a police check post, with intercepted
communications and forensic support indicating the
applicant’s alleged role. The allegations are neither absurd nor
inherently improbable; they are serious and require
adjudication on evidence.
VI) Applicability of Dileepbhai Sanghani and Harshe’s
Case:
8.7 The decisions in Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani and
Page 17 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
M. R. Harshe, (supra) , must be distinguished. In those cases,
the factual matrices involved either lack of any incriminating
material connecting the accused or circumstances where the
allegations were demonstrably unsustainable. Here, the
presence of intercepted communications, corroborative
witness statements, and an FSL Report matching the
applicant’s voice provides a prima facie basis to proceed. The
threshold for quashing is not met.
VII) Section 7A of the PC Act:
8.8 Reliance placed by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor on Rangaya (supra) is apt and directly advances
the prosecution’s case at the quashing stage. In the said
decision, the Supreme Court held that Section 7(a) of the PC
Act penalises not only actual obtaining or acceptance of an
undue advantage but also an attempt to obtain such
advantage; and that, by virtue of Explanation 2 to Section 7, it
is immaterial whether the undue advantage is obtained
directly or through a third party, or whether it is obtained for
the public servant himself or for another person. The Court
further clarified that a veiled or implicit instruction to “do
something” for subordinates can constitute an “attempt to
obtain” an undue advantage within the meaning of Section 7,
and that the sufficiency of such material is a matter for trial,
not for quashing under Section 482 of the Code.
8.9 In the present case, the FIR expressly invokes Section 7A
Page 18 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
of the PC Act, in addition to Sections 12 and 13. Read
together, Sections 7 and 7A create a comprehensive statutory
framework. Section 7 targets the public servant who obtains,
accepts, or attempts to obtain an undue advantage (including
through a third party and for another person), while Section
7A specifically penalises any person who attempts to induce a
public servant, or personally attempts to obtain an undue
advantage for a public servant, by abusing influence or using
personal means. The prosecution’s material—comprising (i)
complaints received post-decoy trap, (ii) transcripts recovered
from co-accused Nilesh Tadvi’s mobile phone indicating
instructions to hand over monies collected as illegal
gratification, (iii) statements of witnesses such as Sattarbhai,
Suhailbhai, Bhaveshbhai, Hussain Shaikh and other
witnesses describing the collection and routing of funds, and
(iv) the FSL Voice Spectrography Report confirming that the
intercepted conversations bear the applicant’s voice, prima
facie discloses a scheme whereby the applicant, if the
allegations are accepted, either attempted to obtain an undue
advantage for himself and/or for other police personnel at the
check post, or facilitated/abetted such attempt through
intermediaries using digital modes and cash conversions. This
is precisely the species of conduct that Rangaya (supra)
holds falls within the ambit of Section 7 read with Explanation
2, and which Section 7A further reinforces when the attempt
is made on behalf of a public servant.
8.10 The applicant’s contention that there is no specific
Page 19 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
averment of “demand, acceptance and recovery” by him
personally, and that he was not physically present at the
decoy trap, misses the statutory point underscored in
Rangaya (supra) the offence is complete upon an attempt to
obtain an undue advantage, and the route - direct or indirect,
personal or through others, is irrelevant at the prima facie
stage. Whether the intercepted words amount to a legally
sufficient “demand”, whether the voice match is conclusive,
and whether the witnesses ultimately prove the case, are all
questions of evidence and proof to be determined at trial,
following the standards laid down in Neeraj Dutta (supra) . At
the quashing stage, the only inquiry is whether the
allegations, taken at face value along with the investigative
material, disclose a cognizable offence. Applying Rangaya
(supra) , they plainly do, the materials suggest an attempt to
obtain undue advantage for the applicant and/or his
colleagues through third parties, with intercepted
communications and an FSL voice match providing prima facie
corroboration. Consequently, the case does not fall within any
of the Bhajan Lal (supra) categories warranting quashing,
and the invocation of Section 7A alongside Sections 12 and 13
is legally sustainable at this threshold stage. The materials
suggest that the applicant, as a public servant, caused or
facilitated the collection of illegal gratification through others,
Section 7A is attracted.
VIII) Section 12 and 13 of the PC Act:
Page 20 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
8.11 Regarding the applicability of Section 12 of the amended
Act, the applicant's contention that the decoy trap was
unsuccessful—and therefore no transaction materialized, is
legally untenable. Section 12 explicitly penalizes anyone who
abets an offence punishable under the Act, “whether or not
that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment.”
The statutory offence of abetment is complete the moment the
instigation or facilitation occurs, entirely independent of the
ultimate success or failure of the specific trap operation.
8.12 The FSL verified telephonic transcripts present clear
prima facie evidence of the applicant actively commanding,
guiding, and instructing subordinate police personnel and
private conduit Nilesh Tadvi to aggregate and route illegal
collections. Under the law, such remote administrative
direction constitutes active instigation and intentional aiding
—the core structural components of abetment.
8.13 By acting as the remote instigator and operational
coordinator of the check-post extortion pipeline, the
applicant's conduct falls squarely within the grip of Section
12. The failure of the trap on any specific date does not
dissolve the criminal liability generated by his recorded
instigations. Therefore, the invocation of Section 12 in the FIR
is perfectly justified in law.
8.14 Section 13(1)(a) occupies the field of dishonest
misappropriation or conversion of entrusted property.
Page 21 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
8.15 Section 13(1)(b) creates a completely autonomous offence
targeting any public servant who "intentionally enriches
himself illicitly during the period of his office." The
prosecution’s case against the applicant squarely triggers
Clause (b). This clause does not require government funds to
be misappropriated; it explicitly punishes the systematic
accumulation of unlawful pecuniary advantages through
bribery.
8.16 Similarly, the applicant cannot seek immunity on the
ground that he did not personally collect the funds and that
the money was instead intercepted from subordinate police
personnel and a private conduit, co-accused Nilesh Tadvi.
Explanation 1 to Section 13(1) explicitly pierces such multi-
layered arrangements by bringing within its sweep any illicit
resources held by the public servant “or any person on his
behalf.”
8.17 The FSL Voice Spectrography Report, which matches the
applicant's voice to the intercepted telephonic transcripts
(under the contacts "Guruji" and "Guru-2"), provides an
unassailable prima facie link showing that these public and
private agents were collecting and handling extortion money
under his direct instructions. The physical and digital custody
of the bribe money by these conduits constitutes constructive
possession by the principal mastermind.
Page 22 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
8.18 The forensic voice matches, digital transaction logs, and
the structural nature of the check-post racket satisfy the
foundational requirements of "illicit enrichment" through
agents under the amended Section 13. Whether these
electronic records hold up under rigorous cross-examination
is a matter of evidence for the trial Court to decide. It cannot
be choked at the threshold under Section 482 of the CrPC.
IX) The Statutory Shift: Pre-Amendment vs. Post-Amendment
Law:
8.19 The cornerstone of the applicant’s reliance on Neeraj
Dutta and Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava, (supra) is the
dictum that "demand, acceptance, and recovery" are the sine
qua non to sustain a corruption charge. However, those cases
interpret the Pre-2018 Amendment framework, specifically the
erstwhile Section 13(1)(d), which required a specific, individual
transaction of obtaining a pecuniary advantage.
8.20 The present FIR is governed by the Post-2018 amended
Section 13(1)(b). As evaluated above, this section introduces
the autonomous offence of "Illicit Enrichment," completely
removing the phraseology of direct demand and physical
acceptance. It targets the end state of accumulating unlawful
wealth through parallel pipelines. Therefore, the absolute
requirement of personal, hands-on demand and recovery laid
down in the older precedents cannot be blindly imported into
a post-amendment charge of systemic illicit enrichment.
Page 23 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
X) The Fallacy of the "No Recovery" Defense in
Institutional Rackets:
8.21 Furthermore, Neeraj Dutta (supra) itself explicitly
recognizes that even under the strict pre-amendment
standards, the offence can be proved via circumstantial and
electronic evidence if direct execution evidence is unavailable.
The applicant cannot use the lack of physical recovery from
his person as a shield when the statute under Explanation 1
explicitly captures assets held by a conduit "on his behalf."
The physical recovery of the extorted wealth from co-accused
Nilesh Tadvi, combined with the forensic voice match proving
the applicant's command over Tadvi, establishes a complete
chain of constructive possession. The rulings cited by the
applicant deal with isolated acts of personal bribery or cases
completely devoid of linking material. They cannot be applied
to an institutionalized extortion ring run via public and private
agents, backed by definitive forensic voice matches and digital
trails. Consequently, the applicant cannot claim the protection
of these precedents to stifle the investigation at its inception.
G. CONCLUSION:
In the result, the application fails. The allegations in the
FIR, read with the charge-sheet materials, disclose a prima
facie case against the applicant. The issues raised by the
applicant regarding the precise nature of “demand”, the
Page 24 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/15376/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
evidentiary weight of intercepted conversations, the FSL
Report, and the alleged absence of direct recovery, are matters
of evidence to be adjudicated at trial. The jurisdiction under
Section 482 cannot be invoked to short-circuit the trial
process where a strong prima facie case exists.
10. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
10.1 It goes without saying that the trial Court, without being
influenced by the observations made herein, will conduct the
trial on its own merits since the observations herein are only
for the purpose of deciding quashing petition.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MOHD SAIF ULLAH
Page 25 of 25
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 13 19:08:26 IST 2026