IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 of 2011 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-

========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus MANUSKHBHAI SHIVABHAI PARMAR ========================================================

Appearance:

MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Date : 16/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha @ Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special Case No.7 of 2007 on 26.02.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – original accused from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) (i)(ii)(iii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’).

1.1. The respondent hereinafter is referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The accused was serving as an Economic Investigator at the District Industries Center, Himmatnagar and was thus a Public Servant within the meaning of law. The complainant, Mukundkumar Somabhai Vankar, had applied for a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for establishing a Small-scale fodder business for livestock at the office of the Commissioner, Cottage and Rural Industries, where the accused was functioning as the In-charge Economic Investigator. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for processing and sanctioning the said loan. Upon negotiation, the demand was allegedly reduced to Rs.1,000/-. As the complainant was unwilling to pay the illegal gratification, he approached the ACB Police Station at Himatnagar, where his complaint came to be recorded.

2.2. The Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses and the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and solution of Sodium Carbonate was carried out in the presence of the complainant and the panch witnesses and the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and solution of Sodium Carbonate were explained to the panch witnesses and the complainant. As decided earlier, for sanctioning the loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, the complainant was required to pay Rs.1,000/- to the accused; however, as the complainant could arrange only Rs.300/-, consisting of three currency notes of Rs.100/- each, the remaining amount of Rs.700/- was taken from the Government Treasury, which included one currency note of Rs.500/- and two currency notes of Rs.100/- each. All the currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and were kept in the left pocket of the complainant’s shirt, and thereafter the trap was arranged. The complainant, along with the panch witnesses and members of the raiding party, proceeded to the office of the accused at Himmatnagar in a government vehicle bearing No. GJ-1-G-3752. At that time, several persons were present in the office, and after the crowd dispersed, the complainant approached the accused and inquired about his application. The accused asked the complainant about the person accompanying him, to which the complainant replied that he was his relative. The accused then asked the complainant to step outside; however, Panch Witness No.1 remained standing near the door so that he could hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. Thereafter, the accused instructed the complainant to give