The State Of M.P. vs Munnalal

The present appeal under section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. is filed by the appellant/State feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 19.12.1997 passed by they learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Sagar, in Special Case No.2/97 whereby the respondent/accused Munnalal was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(i) (d) read with 13 (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the ‘P.C. Act’).

The uncontroverted facts are that the respondent/accused Munnalal was working as a Patwari at Patwari Halka no.31, Khurai, District Sagar. Veer Singh (complainant) had applied for issuance of Bhu-Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika by submitting an application Ex.-P/9 before the Tehsildar Khurai. The accused had received proforma of order sheet Ex.-P/15 from the Court of Tehsildar, Khurai. It is also uncontroverted that the government dues (Takabi) of Rs.325/- and interest was outstanding against Veer Singh since 01.07.1976. It is also not disputed that on 17.10.1996, a trap was conducted by the Investigation Officer of Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) Inspector V.N. Jadiya PW-16. Ashok Rajmani PW-9 and P.S. Kirar PW-8 were the punch witnesses. Veer Singh offered Rs.300/-phenolphthalein smeared currency notes to the accused. Sudama PW-4 and Brijmohan PW-5 of the trap party apprehended the accused and caught hold of his hand. The phenolphthalein smeared tinted currency notes of Rs.300/- were recovered from the pocket of the shirt of accused Munnalal. The traces of phenolphthalein were found on the hands and shirt pocket of the accused. The tinted currency notes and shirt of the accused were seized. The sanction to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act was granted vide Sanction Memo Ex.- P/3. These facts were not disputed by the counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments also.

According to the case of prosecution, Veer Singh lost his Bhu-Adhikar Rin Pustika therefore, he applied for issuance of new Bhu-Adhikar Rin Pustika. The accused demanded Rs.450/- from Veer Singh for issuance of new Bhu-Adhikar Rin Pustika in presence of Harishankar and Kudau Ahirwar. The complainant Veer Singh paid Rs.150/- and promised to pay Rs.300/- in a couple of days. The complainant Veer Singh complained to Bhagwan Das PW-6 and Harishankar PW-3 of Samaj Sudhar Smaiti, Rengua (Khurai). Later, Veer Singh submitted a written complaint at the Office of the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Sagar on 15.10.1996 (Ex P-18). During preliminary inquiry, a tape recorder with cassette was provided to the complainant wherein, he recorded the conversation regarding demand of illegal gratification by the accused. The complainant submitted the tape containing recorded conversation at the Office of the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) and submitted another written complaint on 17.10.1996 (Ex P- 2-A). A trap was conducted by the Investigation Officer Inspector V.N. Jadiya PW-16. The complainant Veer Singh handed over the phenolphthalein coated currency notes to the accused Munnalal at his residence. Sudama PW-4 and Brijmohan PW-5 apprehended the accused. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of shirt of the accused. The hands and the pocket of shirt were dipped in sodium carbonate solution to verify the presence of phenolphthalein. The traces of phenolphthalein were found on the hand and shirt pocket of the accused Munnalal. The incomplete Bhu-Adhikar Rin Pustika and other relevant documents of Veer Singh were recovered and seized from the house of the accused Munnalal. On completion of investigation and receiving the sanction for prosecution, the final report was submitted before the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Sagar.

The learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Sagar framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act against accused Munnalal. On completion of trial, the learned Special Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 19.12.1997, acquitted accused Munnalal of all the charges. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the present appeal is filed assailing the impugned judgment on the following grounds:-

Learned counsel, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the appeal, contended that the trial court has committed an error in relying on minor inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel, referring to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment, submitted that the trial court has wrongly discarded the transcript of tape-recorded conversation corroborating the demand for illegal gratification by the accused. Learned counsel contends that if the evidence of the prosecution is considered in its entirety, then the demand and recovery of bribe money was fully established by the prosecution. The trial court ignored the material aspect that incomplete Bhu-Adhikar Rin Pustika was recovered from the possession of Munnalal which substantiates the existence of reasons for demand of illegal gratification. Learned counsel referred to the evidence of prosecution witnesses and paragraphs- 8 to 13 of the impugned judgment to point out erroneous appreciation of evidence by the trial court. Learned counsel relying on the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731, contends that even in absence of direct prosecution evidence, the case against accused Munnalal was proved by the circumstantial evidence.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the defence of the accused, from the very inception, was that an amount of Rs.325/- was outstanding against the complainant Veer Singh, towards government dues (Takabi). The Tehsildar had instructed the accused to recover the said arrears from the complainant before issuing the Bhu-Adhikar Rin Pustika. The complainant had tendered Rs.325/- towards payment of the arrears, which the accused kept in his shirt pocket. The accused was falsely implicated on the allegation of having demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Learned counsel further submitted that the defence version stood established by the testimony of O.P. Ladiya (PW-1) and the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Court, in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment, rightly held that the probability of defence version was established by the material on record. The trial Court meticulously examined the prosecution evidence in paragraphs 7 to 13 of the impugned judgment and considering the omissions and inconsistencies emerging in the cross-examination of the complainant Veer Singh (PW-15) and the interested witnesses Harishankar (PW-3) and Bhagwan Das (PW-6), rightly declined to rely upon their testimony. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any substantial error. Learned counsel also contended that there was no occasion to demand illegal gratification, it was properly appreciated by the trial Court in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment. The chain of circumstances has not been established. Rather, the circumstances support the defence of the accused. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. To buttress his contention, learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. Vs. The State of Gujarat reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 523.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

The points for determination in the present appeal are as under:-

Before adverting to the merits of the present appeal, it would be apposite to first recapitulate the settled principles governing the scope and extent of appellate interference with a judgement of acquittal. The following guiding principles need to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with appeals, particularly against the order of acquittal:

In case of Satyavir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010) 3 SCC 174, it was held that -

Following the Constitution Bench Judgement in case of M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, (1963) 2 SCR 405 and other judgements of Privy Council, the Supreme Court in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450 has formulated the following principles:

Both the points for determination No. 1 and 2 are being considered together as evidence and conclusion are inter-dependent.

In view of the unamended provision of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution is required to prove following ingredients to establish the guilt of public servant for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, 1988 :-

In case of C.K. Damodaran Nair Vs. Union of India (1997) 9 SCC 477, the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 discussed the expression "accept" and "obtain" as under:-

In case of Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 5 SCC 86, the expression "accepts" and "obtains" were explained as under:-

In case of State of Kerala Vs. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450, it was observed by the Supreme Court that in absence of any evidence to prove the payment of bribe or to prove that accused has voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, mere recovery would not be sufficient to prove the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988.

In case of B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55, the complainant did not support the prosecution, therefore, declared hostile. The prosecution did not examine any other witness present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant to prove that money was given pursuant to the demand made by the accused. The Supreme Court held that when the complainant has disowned the allegation made in the complaint and in absence of other evidence with regard to proof of demand by the accused, the evidence of the complainant and the complaint could not be relied upon as proof of demand by the accused. It was further held that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without any proof of demand would not establish the offence punishable under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act, 1988. It was also held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, 1988, could be drawn only if there was proof of "acceptance of illegal gratification" for which proof of demand was a sine qua non.

In case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152, the complainant died before the evidence. The Supreme Court held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is gravamen for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 1988. Mere acceptance of any amount by way of gratification or recovery thereof de hors the proof of demand would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under aforesaid sections of the Act, 1988. The proof of demand is a sine qua non and in the absence of proof of demand, legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act, 1988, cannot be raised.

In case of Hazari Lal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390, the Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary to prove passing of money by direct evidence. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which happened in any course of natural events, human conduct and public business under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The accused had taken the currency notes from his pocket and flung them across the wall. It was proved that the currency notes were obtained from the complainant a few minutes earlier. Considering the legal presumption, accused was held guilty for the offence.

Relying on Hazari Lal (supra), the three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in case of N. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691 held that once it was established that there was a demand or acceptance of illegal gratification and once the foundational facts were proved, the legal presumption for payment or acceptance of illegal gratification for motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do official act is applicable.

In case of N. Narsinga Rao (supra), the complainant and other witnesses turned hostile and denied that appellant had demanded bribe. The appellant raised the defence that tainted currency notes were forcefully stuffed into his pocket. The Supreme Court observed that the circumstance preceding and succeeding in the discovery of tainted currency notes from the pocket of appellant is sufficient to draw factual presumption that appellant had willingly received the tainted currency notes. It was further observed that since the prosecution has proved that appellant had accepted gratification. The Court was under legal obligation to draw statutory presumption that such gratification was accepted as a reward for doing public duty. The two witnesses examined in defence were unable to rebut the presumption and, hence, accused was found guilty.

In case of Kishan Chand Mangal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1982) 3 SCC 466, it was observed that complainant’s visit to Anti-Corruption Bureau, his proposing currency notes, the Officer of Department arranging a trap and the Raiding Party going to the house of accused indicated that a prior demand for payment was made by the accused.

In case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered all these precedents to answer the reference.

In the case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. The inference is drawn from established facts as the circumstances lead to particular inference. The Court has to draw inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature and consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused. The three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116), held as under:-

Now, the evidence on record is analyzed to examine the proof of demand and obtainment of illegal gratification by direct and circumstantial evidence.

Veer Singh (PW-15), the complainant, deposed that he had applied for a loan from a co-operative bank and had deposited his Bhu-Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika (Bandi) with the bank. The Samiti Sevak misplaced the document, necessitating issuance of a duplicate Rin Pustika. He approached the concerned Patwari, accused Munnalal. On the first occasion, he was accompanied by Kotwar Manak when the accused allegedly demanded ₹500 for preparing the duplicate Rin Pustika.Veer Singh further stated that he thereafter approached the accused on separate occasions, first with Harishankar and subsequently with his nephew Narayan. However, the accused allegedly reiterated the demand on each occasion and did not prepare the document. He then approached Dr. Bhargava along with Harishankar. At the advice of Dr. Bhargav again met the accused, who allegedly persisted with the demand. Consequently, he and Harishankar, approached the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Sagar and reported the matter by submitting written complaint (Ex. P/18). A tape recorder was provided to him for verification of the alleged demand. He again met the accused and recorded the conversation. He subsequently handed over the tape recorder to the Lokayukt authorities. The tape recorder was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/9), and the recorded conversation was reduced into writing under transcription memo (Ex. P/9-A). He also submitted a written complaint (Ex. P/2-A), alleging that the accused had demanded ₹500 for preparing the duplicate Bhu-Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika.

Veer Singh (PW-15), further deposed that he had already paid Rs.150/- to the accused. He was to pay Rs.300/-, therefore, he furnished three currency notes of denomination Rs.100/- to the Investigating Officer of Lokayukt. The currency notes were coated with powder and Panchnama of preliminary proceedings (Exhibit-P/3-A) was prepared.

In paragraph 19 of his cross-examination, Veer Singh (PW-15) claimed that he had met the accused on successive days accompanied by Manak, Hariram Thakur and Narayan before lodging the complaint (Ex. P/2-A). However, when confronted with the previous statements, it emerged that neither the written complaint (Ex. P/2-A) nor his police statement (Ex. D/5) contains any assertion that the accused demanded ₹500 in the presence of Manak, Hariram Thakur or Narayan. This is not a minor omission. It relates directly to the alleged demand, which constitutes the foundational fact of the prosecution case. On the contrary, complaint Ex. P/2-A alleges a demand of ₹450 in the presence of Harishankar and Kundau Ahirwar. The inconsistency relates to the amount demanded and the persons before whom the demand was allegedly made. Hariram Thakur, resident of Singhpur was not even proposed as a witness by the prosecution.

In a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the complainant occupies a peculiar evidentiary position. He is the person from whom illegal gratification is said to have been demanded and he is also the person who sets the trap proceeding in motion by approaching the investigating agency and furnishing the money to lay the trap. Although, complainant is not an accomplice as he does not participate in the crime but is its victim. Still, he is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap laid at his instance so, his evidence need to be scrutinised with the same caution applied to any other interested witness. However, there is no absolute or inflexible rule that the uncorroborated testimony of complainant can never relied for a conviction. Recently, in case of CBI v. Baljeet Singh, reported as 2026 INSC 221, the Supreme Court held that there is no rule of discarding the testimony of persons in the raiding party (or the complainant) unless independent corroboration is available; the complainant is not an accomplice and raiding-party officials, discharging a public duty without personal rancour, are not to be treated as interested merely by virtue of participation. Where the evidence of the complainant and trap witnesses is found trustworthy and is supported by recovery of the tainted money and surrounding circumstances, it can safely form the basis for a conviction. 30. The Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, reported in 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13, has observed thus -

O.P. Ladiya (DW-1), Reader to the Tehsildar, Sagar, deposed that the respondent-accused, while functioning as Patwari, had submitted a report dated 03.10.1996 regarding encroachment upon government land by Veer Singh. The report was received in the office of the Tehsildar on 05.10.1996 and stands duly corroborated by the contemporaneous official record (Ex. D/7). The said report preceded the complaint (Ex. P/2-A) by only a few days. This circumstance furnishes a plausible cause for the complainant’s resentment and grudge against the accused and assumes significance while assessing his credibility. His testimony, therefore, cannot be accepted at face value and requires cautious scrutiny in the light of the other evidence on record. 32. Kundau (PW-1) deposed that the complainant was discussing medh–bandhan (Mud-boundary of agricultural field after demarcation/ division) with the accused. The accused informed Veer Singh that the prescribed amount had to be paid for the work of bandhan. Kundau initially stated that the accused had demanded ₹500 for medh-bandhan and that Veer Singh had paid ₹150. However, in cross-examination, Kundau clarified that the accused had stated that ₹800 was payable as government dues for medh-bandhan. Veer Singh expressed his inability to pay the entire amount at once and offered to arrange ₹500 immediately. The accused permitted him to deposit part of the amount and pay the balance later. It was accordingly agreed that ₹300 would be paid subsequently. Kundau further stated that the accused told Veer Singh that the duplicate Rin Pustika would be issued upon deposit of the remaining ₹350.

The testimony of Kundau (PW-1) does not support the prosecution allegation that the accused demanded ₹450, as stated in the complaint (Ex. P/2-A), or ₹500, as deposed by Veer Singh (PW-15), for issuance of the duplicate Bhu-Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika (Bandi). On the contrary, his evidence lends support to the defence. He stated that the accused had informed Veer Singh that ₹800 was payable towards government dues relating to medh–bandhan (Mud-boundary of agricultural field after demarcation/ division). His testimony further indicates that ₹150 was paid, with an assurance that the balance amount would be deposited later. Thus, the evidence of Kundau does not establish a demand for illegal gratification as alleged by the complainant; rather, it indicates a demand for payment of government dues (Takabi).

Kotwar Manak (PW-2) did not support the prosecution and denied all the suggestions implicating the accused. He stated that when Veer Singh requested issuance of a new Rin Pustika (Bandi), the accused informed him government dues of around ₹250 were outstanding and that the new Rin Pustika would be issued only after its payment. He further stated that no demand for money was made, nor did any monetary transaction take place between the accused and Veer Singh in his presence.

Narayan (PW-14), the nephew of Veer Singh, also did not support the prosecution case. He stated that he had accompanied Veer Singh to the Tehsil office, where he requested the accused Patwari to prepare Veer Singh’s Rin Pustika (Bandi), the accused merely stated that the requisite amount should first be deposited, whereupon the Rin Pustika would be prepared. Narayan specifically denied the prosecution suggestion that the accused had demanded ₹500 as bribe for preparing the Rin Pustika (Bandi).

Harishankar (PW-3) stated that Veer Singh had informed him that the Patwari was demanding ₹500 for preparing the Rin Pustika (Bandi). He accompanied Veer Singh to meet the accused. Veer Singh paid ₹100 to the accused in his presence and promised to pay the balance later. He further stated that Veer Singh told him that the accused was demanding bribe money. He accompanied Veer Singh to the Commissioner’s Office at Sagar, where Veer Singh complained to the Superintendent of Police that the accused was demanding ₹500 as bribe. A tape recorder was provided to Veer Singh. They returned to Khurai and met the accused. Harishankar claimed that during the conversation, the accused again demanded ₹500 for preparing the new Rin Pustika and agreed that the balance could be paid later. He also accompanied the trap party. He and Veer Singh went to the residence of Munnalal, Patwari. Veer Singh paid Rs.300/- to Munnalal and said he will pay remaining amount in couple of days.

However, in cross-examination, Harishankar (PW-3) materially departed from his examination-in-chief. He stated that Veer Singh initially did not tell him that the accused was demanding bribe. He further stated that, although the accused had asked for money, he had not specified it as bribe. He denied the suggestion that ₹450 was demanded towards bandhan and that ₹150 was paid in his presence. Significantly, he could not state with certainty whether the money was demanded towards bandhan or for preparing the Rin Pustika. He also admitted that, when bandhan is undertaken through the revenue authorities, the Patwari recovers the prescribed charges from the landholder. Thus, his evidence is uncertain as to the purpose and nature of the alleged demand. Rather, it presents the reasonable possibility that the demand related to government dues.

Harishankar (PW-3), a self-proclaimed social worker (Samaj Sudharak), remained associated with Veer Singh (PW-15) at every material stage of investigation, from the lodging of the complaint to the execution of the trap. Veer Singh further stated in paragraph 21 of his deposition that Harishankar had prepared the complaint (Ex. P/2-A) at his instructions. The active involvement of Harishankar throughout the investigation proceedings shows that he was not a wholly independent witness. His testimony requires cautious scrutiny because his evidence contains material inconsistencies regarding both the amount allegedly paid in his presence and the amount allegedly demanded by the accused. In these circumstances, his testimony does not provide reliable corroboration of the alleged demand for illegal gratification.

In Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1968 SC 147, the Supreme Court held that an accurate tape-record of a relevant statement is itself relevant, but its time, place and accuracy must be proved by a competent witness, the voice must be properly identified and the recording must be received with caution and admitted only once the court is satisfied that it has not been tampered with.

In R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 471, the Supreme Court laid down three conditions: (i) relevance of the conversation, (ii) identification of the voice and (iii) proof of accuracy by eliminating the possibility of erasure or tampering.

In case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 611, following guiding principles were laid down:

The tape containing the recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused was not produced before the trial Court. It was also not played during the evidence of Veer Singh (PW-15) or Harishankar (PW- 3). Neither Veer Singh, nor the Investigating Officer, Inspector V.N. Jadiya (PW-16) or Constable Arvind Dubey (PW-10), who prepared the transcript, verified that the transcript completely and accurately represented the recorded conversation. No witness identified the voice attributed to the accused. None of the prosecution witness deposed that the complainant and Harishankar, who were allegedly familiar with the accused’s voice, identified the voice of accused during investigation or trial. Further, no scientific voice comparison was conducted during the investigation. In the absence of the original recording being played for consideration of trial Court, verification of its contents and identification of the accused’s voice, the transcript (Ex. P/9-A) cannot be treated as reliable corroborative evidence of the alleged demand for illegal gratification.

Veer Singh (PW-15) alleged that the accused had demanded ₹500 for preparation of the Rin Pustika. However, in paragraph 26 of his cross-examination, he admitted that before submitting the complaint (Ex. P/2-A), he had approached the accused for preparation of the Rin Pustika (Bandi). He denied having accompanied the accused to the Tehsil Office, Khurai, on 16.10.1996 and also denied that the accused had obtained the prescribed format from the office of Tahsildar. Nevertheless, he admitted that the accused had obtained his signature on the application for issuance of the Rin Pustika (Ex. P/19) on 16.10.1996 and acknowledged his signature on it.

O.P. Ladiya, reader to Tehsildar, Sagar (DW-1) deposed that Veer Singh came to his office on 16.10.1996 with application (Exhibit-P/19). He made an endorsement on the application directing Patwari to report arrears of land revenue and deposit Kanungo (Revenue) fees. This endorsement on application (Exhibit-P/19) bears his signatures. Manjulata Tiwari, Assistant Reader to Tehsildar Khurai (PW-13) deposed that the accused came to her office and asked for proforma for issuance of Rin-pustika. Accordingly, she provided proforma Exhibit-P/15. This evidence reveals that immediately before the complaint was lodged, the accused was assisting the complainant for issuance of the Rin Pustika. The complainant attempted to conceal this fact by denying the suggestions but the evidence on record substantiates it. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused, for the reason of recovery of incomplete Bhoo Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika of Veersingh and other relevant documents from his possession.

Tehsildar Mahendra Singh (PW-12) deposed that the accused Munnalal was the Patwari of Halka Nos. 31 and 32. In paragraph 5 of his deposition, he explained the process that upon receipt of an application for issuance of duplicate Rin Pustika, a report regarding outstanding government dues is called from the concerned Patwari. Generally, as an unwritten rule in practice, the duplicate Rin Pustika is not issued until such dues are cleared. In the case of Veer Singh, the requisite information regarding government and bank dues was obtained. It disclosed outstanding government dues of ₹325, and the interest, towards bandhan (division or formation of the boundary of the agricultural holding). These arrears were paid by Veer Singh only in September 1997. Veer Singh (PW-15) also admitted in paragraph 33 of his cross-examination that he had subsequently deposited ₹890.

O.P. Ladiya (DW-1), Reader to the Tehsildar, Sagar, deposed that ₹325, besides interest, was outstanding against Veer Singh towards government dues arising from the Bandhan proceeding. His testimony is supported by the record of Revenue Case No. 94/79 (Ex. D/6), which further shows that the arrears were deposited only in September 1997.

Thus, the contemporaneous revenue record establishes that government dues of ₹325, besides the interest, were outstanding against Veer Singh in connection with the Bandhan proceedings. The evidence of Tehsildar Mahendra Singh (PW-12), O.P. Ladiya (DW-1) and the record of Revenue Case No. 94/79 (Ex. D/6) further show that clearance of such dues was required before issuance of the duplicate Rin Pustika. This presents reasonable probability to the defence that the amount received was towards lawful government dues and not illegal gratification

In case of Soundarajan v. State of Madras, reported in (2023) 16 SCC 141, it was held that-

Although, recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused and the phenolphthalein test stand proved and not controverted in present appeal, the recovery of money alone does not establish the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. In the absence of reliable proof that the amount was demanded and consciously accepted as “illegal gratification”, the foundational facts necessary to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of the Act remained unproved. In any event, the statutory and documentary evidence relating to the outstanding government dues furnishes a reasonable and probable explanation for receipt of the amount by the accused.

The testimony of Veer Singh (PW-15) suffers from material inconsistencies regarding the amount demanded, the occasions of demand and the persons in whose presence the demand was allegedly made. His version does not receive reliable corroboration from Kundau (PW-1), Manak (PW-2), Narayan (PW-14) or Harishankar (PW-3). Rather, their evidence, examined in light of overall circumstance, suggests a reasonable possibility that the amount referred to by the accused was meant for payment of outstanding government dues. Thus, the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded or accepted ₹300 as “illegal gratification” for issuance of the duplicate Bhu-Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika. Accordingly, points for determination Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative.

The learned trial Court, in paragraphs 7 to 12 of the impugned judgment, has carefully scrutinised the testimony of Veer Singh (PW-15), Harishankar (PW-3) and Dr. Bhagwan Das Bhargav (PW-6) and has duly considered the material inconsistencies, inherent improbabilities and contradictions affecting the credibility of the prosecution evidence. The trial Court recorded, in paragraph 13, a reasoned conclusion on a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence that the prosecution had failed to adduce cogent and reliable evidence establishing the alleged demand for illegal gratification by the accused. The said finding is based on the evidence on record and cannot be characterised as perverse, manifestly erroneous or otherwise unsustainable.

Learned trial Court in paragraphs – 16 to 19 of the impugned judgment appreciated the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence to conclude that reasonable probability of the defence is established by the material on record. The conclusion of the trial Court in para 20 is based on detailed and proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on the record.

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is concluded that the findings of the learned trial Court are reasonable and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The conclusion of trial Court is neither perverse nor vitiated by any misreading or exclusion of material evidence. No compelling or substantial ground is made out to displace the reinforced presumption of innocence in favour of accused-respondent arising from the impugned judgement of acquittal. No case is made out for interference in the impugned Judgement.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 19.12.1997 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Sagar, in Special Case No. 2 of 1997 is affirmed.

The record of trial Court be remitted after necessary formalities, alongwith a copy of this Judgement.