Absence of independent corroboration for demand and acceptance necessitates acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The complainant, a businessman, lent ₹50,000 to one Dilipbhai Maheta, who failed to return it

The complainant filed a private complaint before the JMFC, Vadodara, who directed an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC to be conducted by Accused No. 2 (PSI N.G. Vaghela)

Accused No. 2 allegedly demanded ₹20,000 (settled at ₹15,000) to facilitate the recovery of the money

On 07.08.2001, a trap was set by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for the delivery of ₹10,000 to Accused No. 1 (Ramesh, a writer for Accused No. 2)

During the trap, Accused No. 1 allegedly fled upon seeing the raiding party and threw the tainted currency into a water-filled pit

The Special Judge, Vadodara, acquitted the respondents on 31.05.2006

The State appealed this acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC

1. Whether the prosecution proved the twin requirements of "demand" and "acceptance" of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act

2. Whether the findings of the trial court were perverse or patently illegal, warranting interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal

The court applied Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not disturb the lower court's findings if they are "reasonable and plausible," even if a different view is possible (Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana)

Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat

the presumption of innocence is doubled upon acquittal and that strict procedural compliance regarding the recovery of tainted money is mandatory

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case suffered from significant evidentiary gaps.

Firstly, the Shadow Panch No. 1, the only independent eyewitness to the demand and acceptance, died before his examination, leaving only the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony

Secondly, the recovery of the money was suspicious; the notes were found in a public water pit rather than on the person of the accused, and there were contradictions between witnesses regarding whether the recovered notes were wet or dry

Thirdly, the Court found it "highly improbable" that the complainant would agree to pay a ₹20,000 bribe to recover a ₹50,000 debt, especially when the case was already under the supervisory jurisdiction of the JMFC

The Court noted that the Investigating Officer’s testimony was inconsistent with the prosecution's story, failing to prove that Accused No. 2 had even requested the money

Since "demand" is the foundation of a corruption charge, its lack of independent corroboration proved fatal

The Court affirmed that the presumption of innocence is strengthened following an acquittal

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, Vadodara, was upheld. The bail bonds of the respondents were cancelled.