Non-examination of material witnesses to demand and acceptance vitiates prosecution in corruption cases despite recovery.

The Appellant-State challenged the acquittal of Accused No. 1 (a Police Sub-Inspector) and Accused No. 2 (a private person) from charges under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 1 demanded an illegal gratification of ₹5,000 from the complainant (Manager of a Credit Society) to avoid naming him as an abettor in a pending cheating case

During the anti-corruption trap, it was alleged that Accused No. 1 instructed Accused No. 2 to receive ₹3,000 from the complainant’s colleague, Naranbhai

The Trial Court acquitted the respondents on 31.03.2009, leading to the present appeal

1. Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of "demand" and "acceptance" of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the non-examination of a material witness (Naranbhai) and inconsistencies in the trap proceedings were fatal to the prosecution’s case

3. Whether there is any manifest illeaglity or perversity in the Trial Court’s acquittal warranting interference by the Appellate Court

The Court applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal as laid down in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence and that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb an acquittal

It further relied on Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) regarding the "sine qua non" requirement of proving demand and acceptance for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act

The court also noted that if a complainant turns hostile, demand must be proved through other direct or circumstantial evidence

The High Court found that the complainant (PW-1) had turned hostile and denied any demand for money by the accused, stating instead that the PSI only insisted on the production of a suspect

The Court observed a "fatal lacuna" in the prosecution's failure to examine Naranbhai Ratilal Gohil—the most material witness who allegedly handed over the money and gave the signal

The court highlighted technical inconsistencies in the "trap" procedure, specifically that no cigarette or matchbox (used for the signal) was found on Naranbhai during the pre-trap search

PW-2 (panch witness) admitted he could not see or hear the alleged instruction from Accused No. 1 to Accused No. 2

Consequently, the "foundational facts" required to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act were never established

The Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment, concluding that the acquittal was a plausible and reasonable view. The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal of the respondents was confirmed, and the bail bonds were cancelled