Prakash Jaiswal @ Prakash Jayaswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
- Court
- Chhattisgarh High Court
1
CGHC010310862016
NAFR
Digitally signed
by INDRAJEET
SAHU
Date: 2026.10.28
18:03:08 +0530
INDRAJEET
SAHU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1332 of 2016
1 - Prakash Jaiswal @ Prakash Jayaswal S/o Shri Aabaji Jaiswal, Aged About
32 Years The Then Assistant Grade II, Directorate Of Health Services,
Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate.
For State : Shri Atanu Ghoash, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Judgment reserved on 13.10.2026
Judgment delivered on 28.10.2026
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2016 passed
by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) & Ist Additional
Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No.28/2009 whereby
the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)
(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in
short, the PC Act) and sentenced for RI for one year with fine of
Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, one month additional SI
for both the offences with a direction to run both the sentences
concurrently.
2
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant was working as Assistant
Grade-II and posted at the office of Directorate, Health Services,
Chhattisgarh, Raipur in the year, 2009. The wife of complainant namely
Smt. Sunita Raj was posted as Women Multipurpose Health Worker and
posted at Community Health Centre, Keshkal who was on leave from
20.07.2007 to 22.05.2008 on the ground of her ailment and she made
her application for settlement of her leave of 113 days to Block Medical
Officer, Keshwal, from where her application was forwarded to the office
of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jagdalpur, for its approval, and in turn,
it was sent to Directorate Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur. The
complainant Binu Raj, PW-2 and his wife contacted the appellant for
settlement of their claim, on which, the appellant is said to have
demanded Rs.1000/- as bribe, which the complainant gave to him. After
about one month, the appellant again demanded Rs.1000/- more and
Rs.8000/- after completion of the work. On 03.08.2009 the appellant
made a telephonic call to the wife of complainant in her mobile phone
informing that he has obtained the orders from competent authority on
her leave settlement and called her on 04.08.2009 at 12 Noon at
Directorate, Raipur with bribe amount of Rs.8000/-. Since the
complainant and his wife do not want to give bribe to the appellant, the
complainant made a written complaint Ex.P/2 on 04.08.2009 to the office
of Anti Corruption Bureau (in short ACB) Raipur. On the same day, a trap
party was constituted, independent witnesses were called and after
verification of complaint made by the complainant, the trap proceeding
was drawn. The complainant handed over Rs.5000/- in 10 denomination
of Rs.500/- in which the phenolphthalein (Sodium Carbonate) powder
3
was applied. Specimen pouch of phenolphthalein powder was prepared,
sealed and after drawing necessary Panchnamas, the tainted currency
notes were kept in the pocket of the full pant of the complainant and he
was convinced the manner it is to be given to the appellant and was
advised not to touch the said currency notes before handing it over to the
accused. They also convinced him to make gesture after completion of
transaction. A micro cassette tape recorder was also handed over to him
for recording of conversation. They proceeded towards the office of the
appellant. The complainant entered into the office room of appellant and
after sometime he came out and made gesture about completion of
transaction and the members of trap party caught the appellant and
tainted currency notes were recovered from the right pocket of full pant of
appellant. The hand wash of the appellant was turned into pink colour.
The tainted notes, handwash solution and other documents were
recovered, necessary Panchnamas were prepared and transcript of the
conversation recorded in micro tape-recorder was also prepared, the
tape-recorder and other material were seized and unnumbered FIR
Ex.P/26 was recorded. The numbered FIR, Ex.P/12 was registered
against the appellant for the offence under Sections 7 of the PC Act. The
handwash solution were sent for its chemical examination to State FSL
Raipur from where report Ex. P/34 was received and contents of Sodium
Carbonate and phenolphthalein were found in the sent articles. The
appellant was arrested.
3. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of usual
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the trial
court for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of The PC Act.
4
The trial court framed charge against the appellant for the offence under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. The appellant abjured his
guilt and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove charge against the appellant, the prosecution has
examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statement under Section 313
CrPC of the appellant was also recorded in which he denied the
circumstances appears against him, pleaded innocence and submitted
that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. He would further
submit that he neither demanded nor accepted the bribe amount from
anyone. The complainant Binu Raj gave amount to him which was the
loan amount obtained by Ashok Ramteke. The same has also been
explained to the officer of ACB.
5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
prosecution, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as
mentioned in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material
omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
On the same day the officers of ACB proceeded on the complaint made
by the complainant without initial verification of the complaint or without
recording any conversation. Even no preliminary enquiry was done by
the ACB and within a few hours the entire proceeding have been
conducted. The call detail record has not been filed by the prosecution.
The complainant himself have stated in his evidence that he contacted
with one Ramteke who was also a Clerk in the office and he never met
with the present appellant and demanded any bribe from him. Thus,
5
three ingredients of offence i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery have
not been duly proved by the prosecution, and therefore, no offence is
made out against the appellant. Merely recovery of amount from the
appellant is not sufficient to hold him guilty in the offence in question.
There are material contradictions in the evidence of Panch witness N.P.
Kashyap, PW-7 and the complainant PW-2. The other Panch witness
L.P. Patel have not been examined. The prosecution has also failed to
prove that subject work of complainant was under the competency and
jurisdiction of appellant. There was no voice sample or test report of the
frequency of the voice of the complainant and appellant so as to hold that
there was conversation between the appellant and the complainant. Until
and unless it is proved that the voice recorded in the tape-recorder is the
true voice of complainant as well as appellant by any scientific report, it
cannot be accepted that the voice recorded are the voice of complainant
and appellant. There is no any shadow witness in the case to prove the
subject transaction between the appellant and complainant. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against
the appellant and therefore conviction and sentence of the appellant is
not sustainable and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit
that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the demand as well
as acceptance has duly been proved. The evidence of complainant is
corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses including Panch
witnesses. Even if the trap proceeding was drawn on the same date on
which the complaint was made, but that itself is not sufficient to
6
disbelieve the prosecution case as there is no specific mechanism
provided that trap proceeding cannot be drawn on the same day. The
complainant made a written complaint; the officers of ACB satisfied after
due verification of the complaint and constituted a trap party including
Panch witnesses and thereafter trap proceeding was drawn. Recovery of
tainted currency notes from the pocket of pant of appellant and change of
his handwash into pink color dully corroborated with the trap proceeding
and handing over the bribe amount to the appellant. The appellant was
unable to prove probable defence in the case. The complainant has also
proved the demand made by the appellant and in furtherance thereof
recovery of tainted notes from appellant. Thus, there is sufficient and
overwhelming evidence against the appellant and therefore, the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is
justified and needs no interference.
8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records of the
trial court.
9. In a case of illegal gratification, there are three essential ingredients to
constitute the offence, they are (i) demand (ii) acceptance and (iii)
recovery. In the case of Mukhtiar Singh (Since Deceased) through his
legal representatives Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 14 SCC
153 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 14 & 23 as
under:-
“14. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy, this Court took note of its verdict in
B. Jayaraj V. State of A.P2. Underlining the mere possession and
recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of
demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as
Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It was recounted as well that
in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the
use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public
servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot
7
be held to be proved. Not only the proof of demand thus was held to
be an indispensable essentiality and an inflexible statutory mandate
for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it was held as
well qua Section 20 of the Act, that any presumption thereunder
would arise only on such proof of demand. This Court thus in P.
Satyanarayana murthy on a survey of its earlier decisions on the
prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 and the proof thereof summed up
its conclusions as hereunder: (SCC p. 159, para 23)
"23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the
gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge
therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly
by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the
proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to
bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As
a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for
illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the
amount from the person accused of the offence under
Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction
thereunder."
10. In the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi reported in
(2023) 4 SCC 731, the constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court
has discussed the scope of proof of Section 7 and 13(1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads as under:-
88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarized
as under:
88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine
qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public
servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification
and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in
issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the
nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by
circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and
documentary evidence.
88.4. (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, there
need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
8
(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 Sections 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
Sections 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 Sections 13(1)(d) (I) and (ii) of the Act.
88.5. (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.
88.6. (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.
88.7. (g) Insofar 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, the said
presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not
apply to Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20
of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in
sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory
presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
89. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find
that there is no conflict in the three-Judge Bench decisions of
this Court in B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the
three-Judge Bench decision in M. Narsinga Rao, with regard to
9
the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction
for the offences under Sections 7 or 13(1) (d) (I) and (ii) of the
Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or "primary
evidence" of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death
or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or
prosecution witness turns "hostile" is also discussed and the
observations made above would accordingly apply in light of
Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the
judgments in the aforesaid three cases.”
11. In Jaswinder Singh (Dead through LRs) Vs. State of Punjab, (2026)
SCC Online SC 1952, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:-
13. This Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of A.P.1
held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen
of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC
Act; in absence thereof, the charge would fail. Mere acceptance
of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or
recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto would
thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under the
aforesaid two sections of the PC Act. Therefore, failure of the
prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would
be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person
accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the PC Act
(2015) 10 SCC 152 would not entail his conviction thereunder.
This Court held thus:
23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the
gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)
and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably
the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any
amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery
thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would
thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under
these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the
prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification
would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the
person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of
the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.
xxxx xxxxx xxxx
14.2. Thus among other things what the Constitution Bench
declared was that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant is the sine qua non to establish
the guilt of the public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (i)
and (ii) of the PC Act. An offer by the bribe giver and the
demand by the public servant have to be proved by the
10
prosecution as a fact in issue for conviction under Sections 7
and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act.”
12. PW-2, Binu Raj is the complainant. He stated in his evidence that Smt.
Sunita Raj is his wife. She was employed as Women Multipurpose
Health Worker and posted at Community Health Centre, Keshkal. Due
to her ill heath, she could not join her duty from 20.07.2007 to
22.05.2008 and her leave was settled as Earned Leave from
20.07.2007 to 09.11.2007 (113 days) and from 10.11.2007 to
27.02.2008 (110 days) as Commuted Leave and leave without pay for
84 days from 28.02.2008 to 22.05.2008. For settlement of Earned
Leave of 113 days, she made an application to Block Medical Officer,
Keshkal which was forwarded to the office of Chief Medical and Health
Officer, Jagdalpur, from where the case was sent to Directorate of
Health Services, Raipur. He came to Directorate, Raipur along with his
wife and met with Ramteke Babu, Clerk posted at Nursing Cell, who
demanded Rs.1000/- and asked to pay the remaining amount of
Rs.8000/- after completion of work. He handed over Rs.1000/- to
Ramteke Babu and he assured him that he will come with amount
whenever he receive telephonic call. On 03.08.2009 Ramteke Babu
made a telephonic call to his wife and asked her to come along with
remaining amount of Rs.8000/-. He also said that amount would be
given to appellant Prakash Jaiswal and he is on leave at that time.
Since he does not want to give bribe to the appellant, he made a
written complaint Ex.P/1 on 04.08.2009. The officers of ACB asked him
to give a complaint in the name of the person who was working in
place of Ramteke Babu. Thereafter, he made a written complaint
against the appellant which is Ex.P/2. He also informed the officers of
11
ACB that appellant had called him at 12 Noon and thereafter the
officers of ACB verified his complaint and constituted a trap party by
calling two Panch witnesses. He handed over Rs.5000/- in 10
denomination of Rs.500/- in which the phenolphthalein (Sodium
Carbonate) powder was applied by Constable. His Talashi was also
taken by the officers of ACB and Panchnama Ex.P/3 was prepared.
Thereafter, the tainted currency notes were kept in the left pocket of his
full pant and was convinced the manner it is to be given to the
appellant and was advised not to touch the said currency notes before
handing it over to the appellant. They also convinced him to make
gesture after completion of transaction. The handwash solution of
witnesses were also prepared and solutions were seized by keeping it
in the separate bottles. A micro cassette tape recorder was also
handed over to him for recording conversation between him and the
appellant and Panchnama Ex.P/4 was prepared. They proceeded
towards the office of the appellant. When he entered into the office
room of appellant, he made a telephonic call to Ramteke and then he
asked him to give the amount to Jaiswal and take the copy of the order.
He asked him that he brought Rs.5000/- and then Ramteke asked him
to give the entire amount of Rs.8000/-. He handed over Rs.5000/-to
Jaiswal and came back to ATM to withdraw an amount of Rs.3000/-.
Near ATM, he made gesture about completion of transaction and the
members of trap party caught the appellant and tainted currency notes
were recovered from the pocket of full pant of appellant. The hand
wash of the appellant was turned into pink colour. The tainted notes,
handwash solution and other documents including the order of
12
settlement of leave were recovered, necessary Panchnamas were
prepared and transcript of conversation recorded in micro tape-
recorder was also prepared, the tape-recorder and other material were
seized. Spot map Ex.P/8 was prepared by the Patwari and Panchnama
of entire proceeding Ex.P/9 was prepared.
13. At this stage, leading question was being asked from this witness, to
which he stated that he has not disclosed in his police statement that
they met with Prakash Jaiswal who demanded Rs.1000/- and he
immediately handed over the same to him. He also denied that on
03.08.2009 the appellant Prakash Jaiswal made a telephonic call to his
wife and demanded Rs.8000/- from her. He also denied that when he
went to the office of appellant, the appellant Prakash Jaiswal
demanded Rs.8000/- as bribe.
14. In cross examination, he admitted that the case file with respect to
leave of his wife was being dealt with by Ramteke Babu. He admits
rd
that on 3 Ramteke Babu informed them over phone that their work
has been completed and called him. He admits that Ramteke babu
asked him to give the amount of bribe to Prakash Jaiswal and he would
th
be on leave on that day. On 4 he reached to the office of Directorate,
Health Services. Before that, he never met with Prakash Jaiswal nor
had any conversation with him. He admits that he informed the officers
of ACB that it is the Ramteke Babu who asked him to give the amount
to Prakash Jaiswal as he would be on leave on that day. He admits that
the officers of ACB asked him to give his complaint in the name of
Prakash Jaiswal and on that instance he made his complaint to them.
He also admits that he informed the officers of ACB that he neither met
13
with Prakash Jaiswal nor Prakash Jaiswal demanded any bribe from
him. He admits that when he reached to the present appellant and told
him that Ramteke Babu told him to give the amount to him, to which
the present appellant shows his ignorance. In paragraph 22 of his
cross examination, he states that between him and Ramteke Babu
there was no conversation with respect to any bribe amount. The
officers of ACB insisted him to take the appellant out of his office room
and then on the pretext that he wants to withdraw money from ATM,
the appellant came along with him to show the location of ATM. He also
stated in his cross examination that tape-recorder was returned to the
officers of ACB on 04.08.2009 itself. The conversation was not being
heard at the office of Directorate Heath Services. The officers of ACB
have also not heard the said conversation on the same day, but it was
heard on the next day. On the next day, when he heard the
conversation, it was fount not clear. He further admits that on the next
day the officers of ACB obtained his signatures over various
documents and he was unaware about those documents. He
specifically admits that appellant never demanded any bribe from him,
nor accepted the same.
15. When this witness have specifically stated in his evidence that he never
met with accused Prakash Jaiswal and he never demanded any bribe
amount from him nor he accepted any bribe from complainant, then the
demand made by the appellant itself goes suspicion. Ramteke Babu
with whom the appellant had made conversation and he allegedly
demanded bribe from him has not been made accused in the present
case. From the entire evidence of complainant it is clear that the
14
appellant was unaware about the conversation between the
complainant and Ramteke Babu and he neither demanded bribe from
him nor was having any pending work with respect to case file of the
wife of complainant.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of State of Kerala
Vs. C. P. Rao reported in (2011) 6 SCC 450 that mere recovery of
tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when the
substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. In para 10 it was
observed as under:
“10. In C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI {2009 (3) SCC 779), this Court
while dealing with the case under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, by referring to its previous decision in Suraj Mal v.
State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1979 SC 1408) held that mere recovery
of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances under which it
is paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the
substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere
recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution
against the accused. In the absence of any evidence to prove
payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily
accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be
sustained.”
17. In the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55 it was held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that mere recovery of currency notes
cannot prove the offence and it has been held as under:
“7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a
settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine
qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of
currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7
unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused
voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The
above position has been succinctly laid down in several
judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be
made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. ((2010) 15
SCC 1) and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI {(2009) 3 SCC 779).
15
18. In case of RPS Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported
in (2015) 11 SCC 642 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
para 10 as under:-
“10. In fact, we do not find any such legally acceptable evidence
either from PW 3 or from the other so-called independent witness
PW 6 or the shadow witness in order to show that the mandatory
requirement for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d), namely, the demand, acceptance and recovery
was chronologically proved as against the appellant. In the light of
our above conclusion based on the analysis of the evidence led
before the Court, we are constrained to hold that the conviction
imposed on the appellant by the trial Court as well as
confirmation of the same by the High Court cannot be sustained.”
19. Further, in the case of Sejappa v. State reported in (2016) 12 SCC
150 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 10 & 21 held as under:-
“10. In order to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, “proof of demand” is a sine qua
non. This has been affirmed in several judgments including a
recent judgment of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. {(2014)
13 SCC 55}, wherein this Court held as under:
“7. Insofaras the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is
a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification
is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere
recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence
under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money
knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been
succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By
way of illustration reference may be made to the decision
in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. ((2010) 15 SCC 1) and
C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI {(2009) 3 SCC 779).”
“21. While dealing with the contention that it is not enough that
some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to
make it illegal gratification and that the prosecution has a further
duty to prove that what was paid was an illegal gratification,
reference can be made to the following observation in Mukut
Bihari v. State of Rajasthan {(2012) 11 SCC 642), wherein it was
held as under:
“11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of
illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an
offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted
money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the
substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless
there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that
the money was taken voluntarily as bribe. Mere receipt of
amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt,
16
in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and
acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, but the
burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory
presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by
bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial,
to establish with reasonable probability, that the money
was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as
referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the
provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to
consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any,
only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable
doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to
explain as to how the amount in question was found in his
possession, the foundational facts must be established by
the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and
partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap
and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that
of any other interested witness and in a proper case the
court may look for independent corroboration before
convicting the accused person.”
20. In N. Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021(3)SCC 687 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :
“26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot
prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused.
Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in the
case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala
(2009) 3 SCC 779 and in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of
Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55. In the aforesaid judgments
of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)
(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is
reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money
knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal
gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes
is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments
it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the
Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal
gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial
presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets
doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.
27. The relevant paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment in the
case of B. Jayaraj (supra) read as under :
“ 7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it
is a settled position in law that demand of illegal
gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence
and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the
offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the
17
money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has
been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this
Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the
decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. [(2010) 15 SCC 1 :
(2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [(2009)
3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1].
8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the
prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is
concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other
witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly
handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove
that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the
accused. When the complainant himself had disowned
what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11)
before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that
the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1
and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to
come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes
proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We
are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as
well as the High Court was not correct in holding the
demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved.
The only other material available is the recovery of the
tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused.
In fact such possession is admitted by the accused
himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency
notes from the accused without proof of demand will not
bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also
will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any
proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt
or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to
obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot
be held to be established.
9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn
under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such
presumption can only be in respect of the offence under
Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i)
and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of
acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be
drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification
was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act.
Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if
there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the
present case the primary facts on the basis of which the
legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are
wholly absent.”
The above said view taken by this Court, fully supports the case
of the appellant. In view of the contradictions noticed by us above
in the depositions of key witnesses examined on behalf of the
18
prosecution, we are of the view that the demand for and
acceptance of bribe amount and cell phone by the appellant, is
not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to such
evidence on record the acquittal recorded by the trial court is a
“possible view” as such the judgment of the High Court is fit to be
set aside. Before recording conviction under the provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act, courts have to take utmost care in
scanning the evidence. Once conviction is recorded under
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social
stigma on the person in the society apart from serious
consequences on the service rendered. At the same time it is
also to be noted that whether the view taken by the trial court is a
possible view or not, there cannot be any definite proposition and
each case has to be judged on its own merits, having regard to
evidence on record.”
21. PW-7, M.P. Kashyap is the Panch witness. He has stated in his
evidence that on 04.08.2009 when he was in his office, he received an
order from the Additional District Magistrate, Raipur and he was called
to the office of ACB Raipur as a witness in the trap proceeding. L.P.
Patel was also another Panch witness who called by the office of ACB.
When they reached to the office of ACB, the complaint made by the
complainant Binu Raj was given to him. After preliminary verification
they made their note in the said complaint Ex.P/2 and then the
complainant handed over Rs.5,000/- and thereafter one staff of ACB
Mr. Sahu applied phenolphthalein powder over the currency notes. He
took search of the clothes of the complainant, but nothing adverse was
found. The tainted currency notes were kept in pocket of pant of the
complainant and advised him not to touch the same before it is handed
to the accused. He also convinced about gesture to be made after
completion of transaction. After necessary Panchnamas and pre trap
proceeding, they proceeded towards the office of appellant. The
complainant entered into the office room of appellant and after some
time he came out along with appellant and went towards passage of
19
mosque and they followed them. Near State Bank ATM at Old
Mantralaya Campus, the complainant made gesture about completion
of transaction and then they caught hold the appellant. The handwash
solution of the appellant was turned into pink colour and it was seized
in a bottle. On being search of his clothes, the tainted currency notes
were recovered from the pocket of full pant of appellant. The number of
tainted currency notes were tallied with pre trap Panchnama. The
necessary Panchnamas of handwash solution, recovery of tainted
currency notes and other trap proceeding were prepared. Seizure
memo Ex.P/18 was also prepared with respect to relevant documents
of the case of the complainant. The transcript Ex.P/6 was also
prepared in his presence with respect to conversation recorded in the
tape-recorder and tape-recorder and cassette were seized vide Ex.P/7.
The accused was arrested and details of proceeding were also
prepared which is Ex.P/9.
22. In cross examination, he admits that on 04.08.2009 itself at about 11
AM he was called at the office of ACB on the same day and they
reached at about 12 Noon. He admits that he did not get verified the
complaint made by the complainant. The officers of ACB informed him
that the complaint has already been verified. In his presence, the
complainant was not advised for recording of conversation between
him and the appellant. He did not know as to why the officers of ACB
have not verified the conversation recorded in tape-recorder. He admits
that the person who demanded bribe from the complainant Binu Raj
was not having any authority to deal with the file of complainant. He
admits that wife of the complainant was not there with him and he also
20
did not ask of her not coming. He further states that before proceeding
towards the office of appellant, he was not being informed by the ACB
about any plan and he was only advised to remain with the trap party.
He also did not know recording of the conversation by the complainant.
He admits that he was not acquainted with the voice recorded in the
tape-recorder and never heard the said noise before the trap
proceeding. He also could not identify the person whose voice was
recorded and what was the conversation. The transcript was not
prepared in his presence at Directorate, Health Services and at the
time when conversation was heard at ACB office, the said tape-
recorder was not seized from the complainant Binu Raj till that time. He
voluntarily stated that it was seized much before that. The complainant
was asked to go inside the office room alone. They could not see him
as to whom the complainant met inside the office room. When the
officers of ACB caught hold the appellant, he protested that he has not
taken any money from complainant and he has been falsely implicated
in the offence. He further stated in his cross examination that transcript
Ex.P/6 was prepared on 04.08.2009 at 3:45 PM. He admits that at that
time the members of trap party were not present near ATM. He signed
the transcript at ACB office. The transcript Ex.P/6 was prepared at the
first floor of Mantralay campus in a office room. The transcript was
prepared by a lady employee, but her name was not there in the
members of trap party. He admits that he himself was unaware about
any demand made by appellant or any conversation between them. He
did not know for what reason the complainant gave money to
appellant.
21
23. PW-12, Jayrol Lakda, is the Inspector posted at the office ACB Raipur.
He stated in his evidence that on 04.08.2009 the complainant Binu Raj
came to his office and made a complaint Ex.P/2 against the appellant.
He was being instructed by the Superintendent of Police for trap
proceeding along with complainant. Along with complaint, the
complainant has also submitted his consent letter Ex.P/1 executed by
his wife Sunita Raj. The complainant informed him about the demand
made the by appellant. On his request, a trap party was constituted
and two Panch witnesses were called and they were introduced with
the complainant. Panch witnesses verified the complaint made by the
complainant and made their note on the complaint. Thereafter, he
recorded Dehati Nalisi Ex.P/26 against the appellant. The complainant
also provided Rs.5000/- in 10 denominations of Rs.500/-. The Panch
witness Mr. Kashyap prepared the preliminary Panchnama, the
Constable applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes,
search of complainant was taken and thereafter the tainted currency
notes were kept in right pocket of full pant of complainant and
convinced him not to touch it until it is handed over to appellant. He
was also convinced about gesture to be made after completion of
transaction. The handwash solution was seized, Panchnamas were
prepared and then he handed over a micro tape-recorder to the
complainant for recording conversation between him and appellant.
Thereafter, they proceeded towards the office of the appellant. The
complainant entered into the office room of appellant and after
sometime, he came out along with appellant and went towards ATM
through mosque lane. Near ATM, the complainant made gesture about
22
completion of transaction and then they caught hold the appellant
there. He disclosed his name and designation. Handwash solution of
appellant turned into pink colour. The solution were seized in a
separate bottle, Talashi Panchnama Ex.P/16 was prepared and tainted
currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the pant of the
appellant and seizure memo Ex.P/17 was prepared. The other official
record of the case was also seized vide Ex.P/3. Tape-recorder was
seized vide Ex.P/7. Spot Map Ex.P/8 was prepared by the Patwari. The
appellant was arrested and his arrest was informed to his family
members. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to
State FSL from where report Ex.P/34 was received and contents of
Sodium Carbonate were found on sent articles and solutions.
24. In cross examination, he admits that before 04.08.2009 he was
unaware about any complaint made by the complainant Binu Raj. He
met with Binu Raj at about 10 AM on 04.08.2009. Before meeting him,
he already made his complaint to Superintendent of Police. He also
admits that as and when they received any complaint, they get it
verified. Since date and phone number was mentioned in the complaint
made by the complainant, they did not verify the same and also not
obtained any call details. He admits that wife of the complainant have
not made any complaint to ACB office. He admits that in the preliminary
Panchnama Ex.P/5 it has been mentioned that the complainant has
orally informed him that if he will go with the micro tape-recorder to the
appellant, he would raise suspicion on his conduct and therefore his
complaint was not verified. In E to E part of preliminary Panchnama, it
is mentioned that proceeding was suspended at 2:25 PM on
23
04.08.2009 and till 2:25 PM he was unaware about the place of
incident i.e. Directorate, Health Services. He was also not aware about
the place of transaction of bribe amount till that time. He admits certain
discrepancies on date and time over the Panchnama Ex.P/9. He did
not know who was the dealing clerk of case file of complainant’s wife.
When he made communication to Directorate Health Services, in its
reply Ex.P/23 it was informed that in the Nursing Cell, Mr. Jaiswal and
Mr. Ramteke are jointly working for dealing of the file. He also did not
know who wrote notesheet in the case file of the wife of complainant.
He did not know as to whether Ramteke Babu was on leave on that
date or not. He denied that on the date of incident the complainant
informed him over telephone that Ramteke is not present in the office
and he asked to give bribe money to Prakash Jaiswal. The document
Ex.P/30 was prepared by the Additional SP Mr. Khilari. He also did not
know as to whether any amount was withdrawn from ATM at the time of
trap proceeding or not. When the tape-recorder was handed over to
the complainant for recording conversation, there was no Panchnama
prepared that it was blank cassette and no any conversation is
recorded in it. He also could not identify the voice of the conversation
recorded in tape-recorder. He admits that in the transcript Ex.P/6 there
was no mention of any demand of Rs.4000, 5000/- or Rs.8000/-. The
voice of conversation recorded in tape-recorder was not clear. He
admits that the relevant part of transaction i.e. demand of Rs.8000/-,
negotiation for Rs.5000/- and withdrawal of remaining amount of
Rs.3000/- from ATM are not there in the transcript Ex.P/6. He also
admits that from the call detail, the conversation between the appellant
24
and wife of complainant could be verified; the holder of mobile also
could be verified, however, he could not tell as to why the said
proceedings were not drawn.
25. From the evidence of Investigating Officer it also transpires that the
voice recorded in the said tape-recorder was not clear and further that
it has not been proved that the voice recorded in the tape-recorder is
the voice of the appellant. There is no any voice sampling or voice
frequency test conducted by the prosecution to prove that it was the
voice of appellant which was recorded in the tape-recorder during
conversation with the complainant. Even as per his own evidence there
is no mention of any amount of bribe as the conversation was not clear.
In view of the fact that the witnesses were not acquainted with the
voice of the appellant or complainant, there is no voice sampling or
voice frequency test, it cannot be said that the voice recorded in the
tape-recorder is the voice of appellant and the complainant for which
the appellant is being prosecuted.
26. In the matter of Rajesh Gupta Vs. State through Central Bureau of
Investigation, 2022 (2) SCR 864 it has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that tape recorded statement is admissible in evidence
if the voice of the speaker is identified by the maker of record and other
persons recognizing his voice. In paragraph 12 of said judgment, it has
been held as under :
“12. On the issue of evidentiary value and credibility of the
recording in the cases of trap, the law is well settled in the case
of Ram Singh vs. Col. Ram Singh 1985 (Suppl) SCC 611,
wherein this Court held that tape recorded statement is
admissible in evidence if the voice of the speaker is identified by
the maker of the record and other persons recognizing his voice.
In case, the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof
would be required to determine whether or not, the said voice is
25
of alleged speaker. The accuracy of the tape recorded statement
must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory
evidence, direct or circumstantial. The possibility of tampering
with, or erasure of any part of the tape recorded statement must
be totally excluded. The voice of the particular speaker must be
clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds
or disturbances, otherwise, the transcript as prepared, is
inadmissible in evidence.”
27. Admittedly, in the present case the prosecution has not proved the fact
that the voice recorded in the tape-recorder was the voice of the
appellant. Therefore, possibility of tampering with the tape-recorder
and alleged conversation cannot be ruled out.
28. Further, in absence of certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act, the evidence of a digital tape-recorder is not admissible as held by
the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattratray
Gulabrao Phalke & Others, 2015(3)SCC 123 . In paragraph 16, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:
“16. It is to be noted that in the first complaint filed by the second
respondent - the de facto complainant, there is no allegation for
any demand for bribe by the appellant. The allegation of demand
is specifically against accused no.2 only. That allegation against
the appellant is raised only subsequently. Be that as it may, the
only basis for supporting the allegation is the conversation that is
said to be recorded by the voice recorder. The Directorate of
Forensic Science Laboratories, State of Maharashtra vide
Annexure-B report has stated that the conversation is not in
audible condition and, hence, the same is not considered for
spectrographic analysis. Learned Counsel for the respondents
submit that the conversation has been translated and the same
has been verified by the panch witnesses. Admittedly, the panch
witnesses have not heard the conversation, since they were not
present in the room. As the voice recorder is itself not subjected
to analysis, there is no point in placing reliance on the translated
version. Without source, there is no authenticity for the
translation. Source and authenticity are the two key factors for an
electronic evidence, as held by this Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K.
Basheer and others[4].”
29. PW-1, Sunita Raj, is the wife of complainant Binu Raj. She stated in her
evidence that from 20.07.2007 to 22.05.2008 she could not appear in
26
her duty because of her ailment and she made an application for
Earned Leave certificate with the department. Her case was forwarded
to Directorate Health Services Raipur and after about a year they met
with the clerk Prakash Jaiswal who demanded Rs.1000/- to forward her
file. He also demanded Rs.8000/-after obtaining the requisite order.
Her husband was in touch with appellant, but she could not know about
their conversation. She could not give bribe to the appellant and
therefore she executed a consent letter Ex.P/1 in favour of her
Husband. In cross examination, she admits that at the time when she
executed consent letter Ex.P/1, she was aware about the fact that the
order has already been passed on her application. She admits that in
her consent letter there is no mention of any demand made by the
appellant in lieu of the order on her application. She further states that
she disclosed in her police statement Ex.D/1 about demand of
Rs.1000/- at the same time and Rs.8000/- after passing of order and if
it is not there she could not tell the reason. She was not aware about
Ramteke Babu at Directorate Office Raipur. She denied that her file
was under the charge of Ramteke Babu. She admits that she has not
made any complaint to higher officer of her department against
Prakash. She admits that her husband got trapped two other persons.
30. PW-3, Shivbaran Mishra is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police posted
at the office of ACB Raipur and he was also a member of trap party. On
complaint being made, it was verified by the Panch witnesses and then
they made their note on it. The complainant gave Rs.5000/-for trap
proceeding and its Panchnama was prepared. The Sub Inspector R.P.
Sahu applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes. The
27
handwash solution was seized and tainted currency notes were kept in
right pocket of full pant of complainant and he was advised not to touch
the same before handing over the same to appellant. Various
Panchnamas were prepared and then they proceeded towards the
office of appellant. The complainant entered into the office room of
appellant and after sometime he came out along with appellant and
went towards ATM through mosque lane. Near ATM, the complainant
made gesture about completion of transaction and then they caught
hold the appellant there. Tainted currency notes were recovered from
the pocket of the pant of the appellant and his Handwash solution
turned into pink colour. The solution were seized in a separate bottle,
Talashi Panchnama Ex.P/16 was prepared. In cross examination, he
stated that as and when any complaint is being received by the ACB
office, it was verified by the department first and then asked the
complainant to produce the conversation between them. It is not
necessary that in every case the complaint is required to be verified,
but it is on the discretion of the Superintendent of Police. They
proceeded towards the place of incident at 2 PM and after 20-25
minutes the complainant came out from office room of appellant. The
shadow witness who had gone with the complainant have not informed
anything about the proceeding inside the room. He also did not know
as to whether any clerk Ramteke was there or not. In the complaint,
the complainant made complaint alleging that the appellant had
demanded Rs.5000/- as bribe and he did not know why they went near
ATM. He did not know about demand of Rs.8000/- for which they went
near ATM.
28
31. PW-4, Ram Narayan Shrivas, is the Patwari who prepared the spot
map Ex.P/8.
32. PW-5, Lochan Pandey, Deputy Superintendent of Police, was posted at
SHO at ACB Office Raipur. He registered the FIR Ex.P/12 and
forwarded a copy thereof to the concerned trial court. He also
forwarded copy of FIR to Superintendent of Police, ACB. In cross
examination he admits that Dehati Nalisi was forwarded to him for
registration of FIR on 06.08.2009. He did not know as to why Dehati
Nalish was sent after about two days.
33. PW-6, Arun Kumar Mishra, is the Assistant Grade-I posted at Law &
Legislative Department, Mantralaya, Raipur, who proved the sanction
for prosecution Ex.P/14.
34. PW-8, Ram Prasad Sahu, is the Police Sub Inspector at ACB Raipur.
He applied Sodium Carbonate powder in the currency notes and kept it
in pocket of pant of complainant. He is also the witnesses of seizure
memo Ex.P/15 by which specimen pouch of Sodium Carbonate
powder was seized. PW-9, Kishore Chatur has proved the service
record of appellant Ex.P/21&22.
35. PW-10, Bhagwan Singh Rathore is the Inspector of Police at ACB
officer Raipur. He was also a member of trap party and proved the trap
proceeding, however, in cross examination, he stated that at the time
when he reached to the office of ACB, the complainant made his
complaint. He admits that there is no preliminary verification of his
complaint. He could not notice discrepancy in the documents Ex.P/3 &
P/5. He did not know about withdrawal of amount from ATM and why
they went towards ATM. He did not know about the reason for any
29
transaction made between appellant and complainant. The transcript of
the conversation was prepared near ATM and it was also heard at the
same place. The conversation recorded in tape-recorder was not clear,
but he could not say as to whose voice was there in the tape-recorder.
He was not acquainted with the voice of complainant and appellant.
36. PW-11, Dr. Smt. Alka Gupta is the Deputy Director posted at the office
of Directorate Health Services Raipur. He proved the document
Ex.P/23 by which the posting order of the appellant has been given to
the ACB and the work distribution there. In cross examination she
admits that all the works of Section was being done by the employees
jointly. She could not tell as to who dealt with case file of the Smt.
Sunita Raj.
37. From all these evidences, the prosecution has failed to prove about
verification of the complaint; any conversation between the appellant
and the complainant and any demand made by the appellant and the
conversation recorded in the tape-recorder is the voice of the
appellant. Even in the conversation there is no any amount disclosed
with respect to alleged bribe as has been claimed by the appellant.
When the complainant himself has said that he never met with
appellant before such transaction, nor he demanded any money from
him, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the
demand made by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As has been
held in the aforesaid judgments of Supreme Court that mere
acceptance and recovery of bribe amount is not sufficient to hold the
appellant guilty for the illegal gratification in absence of any demand
made by him and the same is the position here in the present case that
30
the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the demand made by the
appellant from the complainant. Therefore, the conviction of the
appellant for the alleged offences cannot be sustained.
38. Accordingly, by giving the appellant benefit of doubt, his appeal is
allowed . The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby
set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the alleged offences. The
appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall remain in
operation for a period of six months as provided under Section 481 of
BNSS, 2023.
39. The trial court record be send back forthwith along with copy of this
judgment for necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
inder