Gujarat High Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Corruption Case — Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Not Proved. Acquittal of Public Servant Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Upheld Due to Unreliable Complainant and Lack of Corroboration.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 01:29:01

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The State of Gujarat appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29-10-2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kachchh @ Bhuj in Special (ACB) Case No. 121 of 1994, whereby the respondent (accused) was acquitted of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused was a Work Charge Supervisor in the office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Sub-Division, and a public servant. The complainant, Karsanbhai Arjanbhai Chabuani, owned land Survey No. 93/1 and 124 in Ludva village. He had made a water storage tank in Survey No. 93/1 and wanted to lay a pipeline across the Darshadi-Ludva road to Survey No. 124. After depositing Rs.1040/- by challan on 18-01-1994, he dug the road and laid the pipeline. On 19-01-1994, the accused allegedly demanded Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification and threatened to break the pipeline if not paid. On 21-01-1994, the accused again demanded money at the complainant's house. The complainant lodged a complaint with the ACB police, and a trap was laid on 22-01-1994, resulting in the accused's arrest. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was full of contradictions and not corroborated by independent witnesses. The panch witnesses turned hostile, and the shadow witness did not support the prosecution. The court noted that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only when acceptance of gratification is proved, which was not established. The court held that the trial court's judgment was based on proper appreciation of evidence and was not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution failed to prove that the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- from the complainant for allowing a pipeline across a road. The complainant's evidence was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, and the trap witnesses turned hostile. The trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse. Held that the appeal against acquittal must be dismissed as no substantial and compelling reasons exist to reverse the acquittal (Paras 1-21).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- from the complainant, and whether the judgment of acquittal by the trial court was perverse or unreasonable.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29-10-2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kachchh @ Bhuj in Special (ACB) Case No. 121 of 1994. The accused stands acquitted of all charges.

Law Points

Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only when acceptance of gratification is proved
Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
Acquittal appeal under Section 378 CrPC requires substantial and compelling reasons to reverse
Evidence of complainant must be corroborated in trap cases

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:5072

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 164 of 2011

2026-01-20

S.V. Pinto

2026:GUJHC:5072

Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya (APP for appellant), Mr. Jayesh A. Dave (for respondent)

State of Gujarat

Keshubha Lakhubha Sodha, Workcharge Mukadam, Nayab Karyapalak

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against acquittal in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Remedy Sought

The State of Gujarat sought reversal of the acquittal of the accused and conviction for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act.

Filing Reason

The State was aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29-10-2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kachchh @ Bhuj in Special (ACB) Case No. 121 of 1994.

Previous Decisions

The trial court acquitted the accused on 29-10-2010.

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- from the complainant? Whether the judgment of acquittal by the trial court was perverse or unreasonable, warranting interference by the High Court?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant (State): The trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence, including the complainant's testimony and the trap proceedings. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act should have been applied. Respondent (Accused): The complainant's evidence was unreliable and contradictory. The panch witnesses turned hostile, and the shadow witness did not support the prosecution. The trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's judgment is perverse or based on no evidence. The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only when acceptance of gratification is proved. In this case, the complainant's evidence was unreliable and uncorroborated, and the trap witnesses turned hostile, so the acquittal was justified.

Judgment Excerpts

The complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

The trial court (Special Judge, Kachchh @ Bhuj) acquitted the accused on 29-10-2010 in Special (ACB) Case No. 121 of 1994. The State filed an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) CrPC before the High Court of Gujarat, which was dismissed on 20-01-2026.