2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 13507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vimal K. Vyas, J
Arvindbhai Babarbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 445 of 2005|R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1981 of 2005

In corruption cases, the prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistent and contradictory evidence from core prosecution witnesses fails to establish these essentials, necessitating the benefit of doubt to be extended to the accused.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374, 377 - Illegal gratification - Requirement of proof - Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non to establish guilt - Merely receiving an amount without prior demand does not constitute an offence - If evidence of core witnesses regarding demand and acceptance is mutually inconsistent and contradictory, benefit of doubt goes to accused. (Paras 25, 27, 48, 56)

(B) Evidence - Credibility of witnesses - In criminal trials, prosecution must stand on its own feet and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - In case of evidence allowing for two possible interpretations, the one favouring the innocence of the accused should be accepted. (Paras 23, 27, 49)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-accused, while serving as a public servant, was alleged to have demanded and accepted a bribe from the complainant to provide certain official documents and influence pending administrative proceedings. A trap was laid, and the accused was apprehended. The trial court convicted the accused under the relevant sections of the anti-corruption law. Appeals were filed by both the convict challenging the conviction and the state challenging the quantum of sentence.

Findings of Court:
The court noted significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant, panch witnesses, and the investigating officer regarding the initial demand, the chain of events during the trap, and the recovery of the tainted currency notes. Documentary evidence contradicted the complainant's assertion regarding pending administrative proceedings. Consequently, the foundational facts of demand and acceptance were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to warrant conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of demand is a prerequisite for conviction under the anti-corruption law. When the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are mutually contradictory and inconsistent, the failure to prove the initial demand renders the subsequent recovery of money insufficient for conviction. The benefit of any reasonable doubt created by the evidence must be given to the accused.

Result: Appeal of the convict allowed; acquittal granted. Appeal of the state dismissed.