Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh at Veraval in ACB Special Case No. 22/1999 (Old ACB Case No. 14/1997). The respondents, Nathabhai Rambhai Daki (Accused No. 1, a Helper in Gujarat Electricity Board) and Ratanpari Karsanpari Goswami (Accused No. 2, a private individual), were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case was that the complainant, Ravjibhai Savjibhai Kapuria (Patel), had applied for an electricity connection for his agricultural land about nine years prior to 26.05.1997. About one and a half months before that date, he learned his application was approved, deposited Rs. 1200 at the GEB Office, Talaja, and obtained a receipt. He requested Accused No. 1 to facilitate the connection, but Accused No. 1 allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 500, later reduced to Rs. 300, to be paid through Accused No. 2. The complainant lodged a complaint with the ACB police, and a trap was laid on 26.05.1997. The trap witnesses, including panch witness Bharatbhai Jivrajbhai Vaja, did not support the prosecution case. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the prosecution's evidence, particularly the trap witnesses, was unreliable and lacked independent corroboration. The court noted that the panch witness turned hostile, and the shadow witness did not corroborate the demand. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked as the foundational facts of demand and acceptance were not proved. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence, and not merely because a different view is possible. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 1, 22)
B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Demand and acceptance of bribe - Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. (Paras 2.1, 22)
C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Trap witnesses - Credibility - The testimony of trap witnesses, being interested witnesses, requires independent corroboration. If the trap witnesses are unreliable and their evidence is not corroborated by independent witnesses, the prosecution case fails. (Paras 2.2, 2.3, 22)
D) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 20 - Presumption of culpable mental state - The presumption under Section 20 is rebuttable and arises only when the prosecution proves that the accused accepted or obtained gratification. In the absence of proof of demand and acceptance, the presumption cannot be invoked. (Paras 2.4, 22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse and requires interference by this Court in an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh at Veraval in ACB Special Case No. 22/1999 is confirmed. The bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- presumption under Section 20 PC Act
- demand and acceptance of bribe
- credibility of trap witnesses
- independent corroboration
- standard of proof in criminal appeal against acquittal
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 342
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1317 of 2015
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Appellant; MR ASHISH M DAGLI for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
Nathabhai Rambhai Daki & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
The State of Gujarat sought to set aside the acquittal of the respondents and convict them for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Filing Reason
The State challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh at Veraval in ACB Special Case No. 22/1999, on the ground that the trial court's findings were perverse and against the evidence on record.
Previous Decisions
The learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents of all charges on 31.08.2015.
Issues
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse and requires interference by this Court in an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned APP submitted that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence, including the complaint, trap proceedings, and sanction order. The demand and acceptance of bribe were proved through the complainant and panch witnesses.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial court correctly acquitted the accused as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the panch witness did not support the case, and there was no independent corroboration of demand and acceptance.
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the High Court can interfere only if the trial court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only after foundational facts are proved. Trap witnesses, being interested, require independent corroboration. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance, and the trial court's acquittal was not perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh at Veraval in ACB Special Case No. 22/1999 [Old ACB Case No. 14/1997], whereby the respondents were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution case, as emerging from the record and the evidence led before the learned Trial Court, may be briefly stated as under:
Accused No. 1, Nathabhai Rambhai Daki, was employed as a Helper in the Gujarat Electricity Board and was a public servant. Accused No. 2, Ratanpari Karsanpari Goswami, was a private individual.
The complainant, Ravjibhai Savjibhai Kapuria (Patel), owned ten vighas of agricultural land on the outskirts of Jasapur Gir village and had applied to the Talaja GEB Office for an electricity connection to install a motor on his well approximately nine years prior to 26.05.1997.
About one and a half months before 26.05.1997, he learned that his application had been approved, and upon receiving written intimation, he deposited Rs. 1200/- at the GEB Office, Talaja, and obtained a receipt.
He requested Accused No. 1 to facilitate the connection, but Accused No. 1 allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 500, later reduced to Rs. 300, to be paid through Accused No. 2.
The complainant lodged a complaint with the ACB police, and a trap was laid on 26.05.1997.
The trap witnesses, including panch witness Bharatbhai Jivrajbhai Vaja, did not support the prosecution case.
The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court, in appeal, held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the prosecution's evidence, particularly the trap witnesses, was unreliable and lacked independent corroboration.
The court noted that the panch witness turned hostile, and the shadow witness did not corroborate the demand.
The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked as the foundational facts of demand and acceptance were not proved.
The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was confirmed.
Procedural History
The complainant lodged a complaint with the ACB police on 26.05.1997. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the case was tried as ACB Special Case No. 22/1999 (Old ACB Case No. 14/1997) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh at Veraval. The trial court acquitted the respondents on 31.08.2015. The State of Gujarat filed the present appeal under Section 378 CrPC on 17.09.2015, which was heard and dismissed by the High Court on 20.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 378
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 20
