Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 17854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J
Anil Markende – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1423 of 2017
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Anti-Corruption Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Evidence of electronic records - Requirement of compliance with Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Admissibility and integrity of tape-recorded conversation - In absence of forensic voice analysis, certificate under Section 65-B, and secure chain of custody, electronic evidence cannot be relied upon to prove demand of bribe. (Paras 20, 23, 25)
Facts of the case:
Two public servants were convicted by the trial court under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting an illegal gratification for releasing the withheld salary of a third party. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the complainant and tape-recorded conversations. The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of perversity, lack of independent evidence to prove the demand, and failure to establish the integrity of the electronic evidence.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to bridge the gaps in its evidence regarding the initial demand for gratification. The testimony of the complainant was inconsistent, and the prosecution failed to examine other material witnesses. Crucially, the integrity of the voice recording was compromised as it was not subjected to expert analysis, lacked a supporting certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, and remained in the complainant's custody for several days.
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution successfully proved the demand for illegal gratification as a sine qua non for conviction and whether the electronic evidence relied upon was admissible and authentic.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction under the Act without clear proof of prior demand, which constitutes the essential element of the offence. In the absence of corroborative evidence and credible electronic records, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sharmila Singhai, Shashwat Rai
For the Respondents: Jitendra Shrivastava
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background involving alleged demand and trap. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural history of trial and conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments challenging validity of evidence and demand. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. state's counterarguments defending trial court evidence assessment. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. critical analysis of witness inconsistencies and electronic evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. proof of demand is essential for pc act conviction. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. acquittal due to failure to prove demand of bribe. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| The date when the judgment is reserved | The date when the judgment is pronounced | The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operative | Full | ||
| 25.04.2026 | 23.06.2026. | -- | 23.06.2026 |
1 - Anil Markende S/o Shri Sadaram Markande, aged about 33 years, Occupation Assistant Director, Education, District Bemetara and additional charge of Block Education Officer, Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.).
2 - Ramesh Kumar Chouhan, Clerk (Original Post Shikshakarmi), Office of Block Education Officer, Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.)
... Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent
1. This appeal has arisen out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.09.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.) in Special Case No. 09/2013. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. | R.I. for 03 years and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months to each appellants. |
| Under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. | R.I. for 03 years and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months to each of the appellants. |
(All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.)
2. The prosecution case as unfolded from the impugned judgment and records is that the complainant, Shyam Kumar Tiwari, approached the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), alleging that his wife, employed as a Shiksha Karmi (Class-III) “Education Worker” at Government Primary School, Amlideeha, Block Nawagarh, District Durg, had her salary withheld for six months by the Block Education Officer (BEO). To resolve the matter, the complainant contacted appellant No. 2-Ramesh Kumar Chouhan, who allegedly demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000 for facilitating the release of the withheld salary. The demand was purportedly made on behalf of appellant No.1-Anil Markende, the Block Education Officer. Acting on the complaint, the ACB Inspector, Lochan Pandey (PW-12), instructed the complainant to record the conversation with the appellants using a tape recorder.
The complainant recorded the conversation and informed the ACB that the appellants had called him on 12.10.2010 to collect the bribe amount. On 12.10.2010, the ACB team conducted a trap at the office of the BEO. After the complainant handed over Rs. 5,000, Appellant No. 1 was asked to wash his hands in a Sodium Carbonate solution, which changed color, indicating the presence of the tainted currency.
3. During the subsequent course of investigation, relevant evidence, including the bribe money was recovered from the left pocket of the appellant No. 1’s pant. The trap team prepared a Panchnama (Ex. P/13) documenting the recovery. The complainant’s written complaints were marked as Ex. P/03 and Ex. P/05, and the transcriptions of the recorded conversations were marked as Ex. P/06 and Ex. P/11.
4. After completion of the usual investigation, on the basis of the material contained in the charge sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellants for the offence punishable
