Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ramniwas vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12977) on 7 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:12977]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2530/2023
Ramniwas S/o Shri Ramchandra Meena, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Apreda, Post Badva, P.s. Bassi, Dist. Jaipur, The Then Bank
Officer, Bank Of Baroda Branch-Paloda, Dist. Banswara
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Baleshwar Ahari S/o Shri Vela Ji Ahari, R/o Bai Ka Gadha,
P.s. Lohariya, Tehsil Garhi, Dist. Banswara
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi and
Mr. Lokendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NK Gurjar, AAG assisted by
Mr. Yogendra Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
07/03/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed by learned Special
Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases No.1, Udaipur, in
Special Sessions Case No.05/2011 (CIS No.55/2014) by which the
learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 7
of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo one
year SI along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant Baleshwar lodged
a report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB
Banswara stating inter-alia that he applied for sanction of personal
loan before the Bank of Baroda, Branch Paloda, Banswara in the
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12977] (2 of 10) [CRLAS-2530/2023]
month of August, 2009, where Shri B.L. Meena was posted as
Manager and for sanction of Rs.1 lac personal loan, he demanded
Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification. The complainant also talked to
the Bank clerk Ramniwas (present appellant), who also demanded
the same amount. Upon this complaint, verification of demand
was got done on 10.09.2009 from the appellant and on
11.09.2009 from Babu Lal Meena, co-accused. Thereafter, on
14.09.2009, a trap was arranged and the graft money of
Rs.3,000/- was recovered from the drawer of the table of co-
accused B.L. Meena. The co-accused explained to the trap officers
that the said amount was given by the complainant towards
processnig fee. However, no recovery was made from the present
appellant during the trap and he was implicated in this case on the
basis of alleged demand.
After thorough investigation, challan was filed against the
appellant as well as co-accused Babulal. Thereafter, the trial court
framed the charges for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) R/w
Section 13(2) of PC Act and Section 120B IPC. The accused
persons including the appellant denied the same and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as twelve witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons
including the appellant were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In
defence, no witness was examined, but certain documents were
exhibited by the accused persons.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 01.12.2023 convicted and sentenced
the appellant for offence under Section 7 of PC Act and co-accused
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12977] (3 of 10) [CRLAS-2530/2023]
Babu Lal for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of PC Act.
Hence, this criminal appeal on behalf of the appellant against his
conviction.
Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, the
appellant was convicted for offence under Section 7 of PC Act and
not for offence under Section 13 of the Act. Counsel submits that
the only basis of conviction of the appellant is the alleged
transcription report (Ex-P/2). From the bare perusal of the fard
transcription, it is apparent that no work was pending with the
appellant and no specific demand was raised by the appellant for
any work. Counsel submits that even the alleged recovery of
Rs.3,000/- was made from co-accused Babulal and not from the
present appellant. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that
any offence was committed by the appellant under Section 7 of
the Act, more particularly when neither the appellant was
authorized to sanction the loan, nor any work was pending with
him, nor any demand was raised by him, nor any amount was
accepted by him. But all these aspects of the matter were not
taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing
the impugned judgment and wrongly convicted and sentenced the
appellant for offence under Section 7 of the Act. Counsel further
submits that the criminal appeal i.e. SB Cr. Appeal No.2556/2023,
filed by the main accused Babu Lal, from whom recovery of
Rs.3,000/- was made, has already been allowed by this Court vide
order dated 16.08.2024 while setting aside his conviction and
sentence passed by the trial court. Therefore, it is prayed that the
appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed.
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12977] (4 of 10) [CRLAS-2530/2023]
Learned AAG appearing for the State submits that the
learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentence the appellant
under Section 7 of the Act as there is ample evidence against him
for commission of the offence. The impugned judgment is just and
proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment as well as evidence on record including the
judgment dated 16.08.2024 passed by this Court in SB Cr. Appeal
No.2556/2023 filed by co-accused Babu lal.
In the first instance, it is deemed appropriate to reproduce
Section 7 of the Act for easy reference:
“7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal
remuneration in respect of an official
act.-
Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant,
accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to
obtain from any person, for himself or for any other
person, any gratification whatever, other than legal
remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or
forbearing to do any official act or for showing or
forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official
functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for
rendering or attempting to render any service or
disservice to any person, with the Central Government
or any State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State or with any local authority,
corporation or Government company referred to in
clause (c) of Section 2 or with any public servant,
whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
imprisonment which shall be not less than three years
but which may extend to seven years and shall also be
liable to fine.
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12977] (5 of 10) [CRLAS-2530/2023]
Explanations.-
(a) “Expecting to be a public servant”- If a person not
expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by
deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in
office, and that he will then serve them, he may be
guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence
defined in this section.
(b) “Gratification”. The word “gratification” is not
restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications
estimable in money.
(c) “Legal remuneration”- The words “legal
remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration
which a public servant can lawfully demand, but
include all remuneration which he is permitted by the
Government or the organisation, which he serves, to
accept.
(d) “A motive or reward for doing”. A person who
receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing
what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or
has not done, comes within this expression.
(e) Where a public servant induces a person
erroneously to believe that his influence with the
Government has obtained a title for that person and
thus induces that person to give the public servant,
money or any other gratification as a reward for this
service, the public servant has committed an offence
under this section.”
The twin conditions i.e. 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 in order to establish the guilt of the
accused public servant under section 7 of the Act. In order to
bring the accused to book, the prosecution has to prove the
demand of ‘illegal gratification’ and its ‘subsequent acceptance’
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12977] (6 of 10) [CRLAS-2530/2023]
either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. In the case at
hand, the demand of illegal gratification was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
It is not disputed that upon complaint made by the
complainant, a trap was conducted and during the trap, the trap
money was recovered from the drawer of co-accused Babu Lal. It
is also not disputed that present appellant Ramniwas was a clerk
in the Bank who had neither any authority to sanction the loan nor
the work of loan sanction was pending before him.
In the case of Imamsab Moulasab Toragal Vs. The State of
Karnataka in (Criminal Appeal No. 2553/2013), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court considered the earlier judgment in A. Subair Vs.
State of Kerala reported in (2009) 6 SCC 507, wherein it was
observed and held that in order to secure order of conviction of
offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(D)/13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to establish the
following ingredients:-
1. Demand and acceptance of bribe money.
2. Handling of tainted money by the accused on the day of trap
(colour test).
3. Work of the complainant must be pending as on the date of
trap with the accused.
In Chandresha Vs State of Karnataka Lokayukt Police
Kalburgi in Criminal Appeal No. 200105/2015 decided on
16.2.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the work of
complainant is not pending before accused as on the date of trap
the important ingredient to attract and complete the offence
punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12977] (7 of 10) [CRLAS-2530/2023]
Corruption Act cannot be sustained. Identical view was expressed
in Karnataka Vs. Narayanswamy in Criminal Appeal No.
2506/2012.
In the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 507, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in para 28
as follows :-
“28. It needs no emphasis that the prosecution has to
prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt like any
other criminal offence and the accused should be
considered innocent till it is established otherwise by
proper proof of demand and acceptance of the illegal
gratification, the vital ingredient, necessary to be
established to procure a conviction for the offences
under consideration.”
In Soundarajan Vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police
Vigilance Anti Corruption Dindigul reported in AIR 2023 SC 2136,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated the law as follows:-
“11……………… To attract Section 7 of the PC Act,
the demand for gratification has to be proved by the
prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word
used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018,
is ‘gratification’. There has to be a demand for
gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but
it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum
of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is
proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can
be invoked, and the Court can presume that the
demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any
official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the
accused.”
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12977] (8 of 10) [CRLAS-2530/2023]
Evidently, the record reveals that no work of the complainant
was pending with the present appellant, neither on the date of
making of the complaint or on the date of managing trap,
therefore, important ingredient of the offence is missing to the
extent that any work was pending with the public servant.
Recovery of each and every money on trap would not satisfy the
requirement of gratification unless the money was being paid for
discharge of official duty pending with the accused.
Besides the aforesaid, the main accused Babu Lal Meena,
who was the Manager, before whom work was pending has already
been acquitted by this Court. It was observed by the co-ordinate
Bench that the complainant had, in a pre-planned manner, staged
the trap to falsely implicate the appellant because the record
reveals that entire Rs.80,000/- was already transferred to the
bank account of the complainant as such no cash of huge amount
of Rs.40,000/- was required to be paid to the complainant. The
complainant was carrying a grudge and he had planted a case
which has not been supported by any other prosecution witnesses
especially the ACB Authorities that the complainant paid
Rs.3000/- at the time of trap to the appellant and appellant
handed over Rs.40,000/- of the loan amount, therefore, testimony
of the complainant on question on demand cannot be accepted in
the facts and circumstance narrated above.
In the present case, since the prosecution failed to produce
any material to prove the demand of bribe, its acceptance on the
part of appellant so also pendency of work on the date of trap,
therefore, as a consequential corollary, the prosecution has failed
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12977] (9 of 10) [CRLAS-2530/2023]
to show that the appellant, with dishonest intention, committed
any acts and obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
Moving on to the concept of standard of legal proof, the well
entrenched principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is
presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt is required to be considered here.
In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam: : (2013) 12 SCC
406, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“The reiteration of the golden principle runs through
the web of the administration of justice in criminal
cases has been done. It has further been held that
suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of
proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case
in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in
the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of
any possible surmises or conjectures. Thus, on the
material on record when judged on the touch stone of
legal principles adumbrated hereinabove, leave no
manner of doubt that the prosecution, in the instant
case, has failed to prove unequivocally, the demand of
illegal gratification.”
The sum and substance of the above reasonings go to show
that there is no acceptable or clinching evidence proving that
appellant, with dishonest intention, committed any acts and
obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed by learned Special
Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases No.1, Udaipur, in
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12977] (10 of 10) [CRLAS-2530/2023]
Special Sessions Case No.05/2011 (CIS No.55/2014) is set aside
and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the offences by
extending benefit of doubt. Appellant is on bail, therefore, his bail
bonds are discharged.
Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to forthwith furnish
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the
like amount before the learned trial court within a period of one
month, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the
effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against
the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of
notice thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
134-MS/-
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)