Patna High Court
Sultan Ahmad vs The State Of Bihar Through The … on 15 April, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5364 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2011 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
SULTAN AHMAD SON OF LATE MD. AKHTAR RESIDENT OF NEW
AZIMABAD COLONY, P.S. - SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT - PATNA, THEN
CIRCLE OFFICER, BELAGANJ BLOCK, DISTRICT - GAYA
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE VIGILANCE, PATNA BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 5460 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2011 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Poonam Devi @ Poonam Sinha W/o Umesh Prasad Gupta R/o mohalla-Seva
Nagar Colony,Q.No.34, P.S-Civil Line, District-Gaya.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar,Patna Bihar Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 5364 of 2023)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ali Muqtabir Ahmad, Advocate
Mr.Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mr.Anil Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 5460 of 2023)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shyam Kishore, Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mr.Anil Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-04-2025
Heard Mr. Ali Muqtadir Ahmad duly assisted by
Mr. Shyam Kishore and Mr. Shailesh Kumar for the appellants
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
2/54
as also Mr. Anil Singh representing the Vigilance Investigation
Bureau, Bihar, Patna (henceforth for short 'the Bureau') in
both the case.
2. The present appeals have been filed against:
the judgment of the conviction and order
of sentence dated 24.11.2023 and order of
sentence dated 24.11.2023 passed by the
Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna in Special
Case No. 34 of 2011 (arising out of
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37 of 2011) by
which the appellant, Sultan Ahmad has
been convicted R.I. for 6 (six) months
imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
for the offence under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act and further
R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/-
under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
and in default of payment of fine, he will
undergo imprisonment of for one month.
The appellant Punam Devi has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
3/54
pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-for the offence
under Section 12 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of
payment of fine, she will undergo
imprisonment of one year.
3. Earlier, the appeals stand admitted on 20.12.2023
and 03.01.2024 and the Trial Court Records were called for
which has/have been received.
4. As per the prosecution story, a complaint was
received in 'the Bureau', Bihar, Patna on 21.06.2011. The
complainant was one Priya Sharma, a resident of Silonja,
Gaya and according to it, for getting part possession of 12.5
decimal of land bearing Cadestral Survey Khata no./recent
Survey Khata no. 797, Cadestral Khesra no./recent Khesara
no. 2411, (area 12.5 decimals) of land in village Silonja,,
Thana No. 415, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya allotted in
favour of her husband by the government who was serving in
the Indian Army but part of it was illegally occupied by the co-
sharers, she visited the Belaganj Block Office and as per the
allegation, she met with the Circle Officer, Belaganj, Sultan
Ahmad as also the Head Clerk namely Poonam Devi @
Punam Sinha for getting the possession back. They demanded
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
4/54
the money and assured that the work will be executed by the
Circle Officer.
5. She, thereafter, met the appellant, Sultan
Ahmad who demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe. He further
directed the complainant to meet the Head Clerk, Poonam
Devi who also demanded the bribe. As she was not interested
in paying bribe, chose to file complaint.
6. Once the complaint was filed with 'the Bureau',
Dinesh Tiwary, ASI, Vigilance was directed to verify the
allegation. On 22.06.2011, he along with the complainant went
to Belaganj Block Office where the appellant once again
demanded the bribe, Rs. 8000/- for himself and Rs.2000/- for
the Head Clerk, Poonam Devi. Later, on his instruction, they
met Poonam Devi who also made the same demand and
assured that the work will be done. She further asked the
complainant to visit the next day (23.06.2011) near Railway
Hospital, Gaya where the Circle Officer resides so that they
can go to his residence and make the payment.
7. Once the verification was completed, the case
was registered, a Trap Team was constituted on the direction
of the Deputy Inspector General, Vigilance under the DSP,
Vigilance namely Nand Ji Singh. A pre-trap meeting was held
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
5/54
on 23.06.2011 where the entire process was demonstrated
including the use of powder and sodium carbonate. Later, they
proceeded for the location.
8. Once at Gaya and near the residence of Sultan
Ahmad, they waited for long for Poonam Devi (Head Clerk)
to come at the place but as she failed to arrive, they chose to
visit the Circle Officer's house. The complainant went inside
the house and the moment the appellant, Sultan Ahmad
accepted the bribe, signal was given whereafter, he was
surrounded, the bribe money was taken from him. The
chemical process conducted and the solution turned pink.
Thereafter, on the basis of written complaint, Vigilance Case
No. 37 of 2011 was lodged on 24.06.2011 under sections 7 and
13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (henceforth for short 'the Act'). Later, sections 8 to
10 and 12 of 'the Act' were incorporated in the FIR.
9. The charge-sheet was submitted vide
chargesheet No.59 dated 17.08.2011. Cognizance was taken
in the matter on 18.08.2011 and the charges were framed on
22.07.2017.
10
. Though the Police in the charge-sheet had
named the witnesses Sanjay Chaturvedi and Sanjay Kumar
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
6/54
Singh, the two Constables who were part of the Trap Team and
caught hold of the appellant, Sultan Ahmad when he allegedly
took bribe, they were not examined in course of the trial. Same
is the case of Ayush Kumar and Randhir Sharma who
according to the prosecution story were the independent
witnesses belonging to the village of the informant (Silonja)
but they too were not examined.
11. The witnesses who were examined during the
trial are as follows:
01 Dinesh Tiwary Retired S.I. of’the
Bureau’.
02. Nand Jee Singh Retired Dy. S.P.
‘the Bureau’
03. Ms. Priya Sharma Complainant
04. Sudesh Yadav Constable and
Member of Trap
Team
05. Ashok Vardhan, I.A.S.
and Sanctioning
Authority of
Principal Secretary, Revenue appellant Sultan
Ahmad
and Land Reforms Department,Bihar.
06. Zorawar Pd. Singh Member of the
Trap Team
07. Anup Kumar FSL Expert
08. Vandana Preyesi, I.A.S. and Sanctioning
Authority of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
7/54District Magistrate, Gaya appellant Poonam
Devi
09. Amritendu Shekhar Thakur Investigating
Officer
10. Praduman Singh 2nd Investigating
Officer
11. Jay Prakash Pathak Constable and
Member of the
Trap Team.
12. The Exhibits put forward by the prosecution
is/are as follows:
S. No. Description of documents Exhibit Numbers
1. Endorsement and signature Sri Exhibit-1
Sudhir Kumar, S.H.O of Vigilance
P.S registration of F.I.R.
2. Verification Report Exhibit-2
3. Recommendation Sri Sudhir Exhibit-2/a
Kumar, S.H.O. Vigilance P.S on
verification report for constitution
of trap team.
4. Order of Sri P.K. Thakur, A.D.G Exhibit-2/b
Vigilance on verification report
for constitution of trap team.
5. Pre Trap Memorandum Exhibit-3
6. Post Trap Memorandum Exhibit-4
7. Trap Team Proceeding Report Exhibit-5
8. Recommendation Sri Sudhir Exhibit-5/a
Kumar, S.H.O. Vigilance P.S on
trap team proceeding report for
registration of F.I.R.
9. Order of Sri P.K. Thakur, A.D.G Exhibit-5/b
Vigilance on trap team proceeding
report for registration of FI.R.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
8/54
10. Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-6
11. Complaint Petition Exhibit-7
12. Signature of complainant on Exhibit-8
formal F.I.R.
13. Sanction order Exhibit-9
14. F.S.L. Report Exhibit-10
15. Sanction Order Exhibit-11
16. Signature of Sri Sudhir Kumar on Exhibit-5/c
Trap Proceeding Team Proceeding
Report.
17. Charge Sheet Exhibit-12
18. Charge Sheet Exhibit-13
S. No Description of the materials Number of
material exhibits
1. 9 G.C Notes of Rs.1000/-and 2 Exhibit-1 to1/10
G.C Notes of Rs.500/-
denominations.
13. The list of document provided by the Defence
is/are as follows:
S. NO Description of the documents Exhibit Numbers
1. C.C of the written Statement in A
T.S. 170/2011 ( seven Sheets)
2. Order passed in CWJC no. B
13624/2018 by the Honorable
High Court
3. The attested copy of judgment C
passed in T.S 58/11(170/11)
4. The attested copy of the D
deposition of Kunal Goswami
5. Memo no 242, dated, E
25/06/2012 issued by C.O,
Belaganj Gaya
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
9/54
6. Certificate issued by Mukhiya, F
Gram Panchayat Lodipur.
7. Web copy of Map of Gaya Town G
8. Report of Gaya Municipal H
Corporation
9. Photo copy of Gaya Town Map I
14. P.W.-1, is Dinesh Tiwary, an ASI posted with
‘the Bureau’ at Patna. According to this P.W., he was
assigned the duty on 21.06.2011 by the Station Head Officer,
Sudhir Kumar to get the complaint verified. On 22.06.2011, he
went to Belaganj from Patna and contacted the complainant.
Later, along with her, he went to the Circle Office at 12:30
P.M. where the appellant, Sultan Ahmad serving as Circle
Officer, Belaganj demanded the bribe of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.
8000/- for himself and Rs.2000/- for Poonam Devi, another
appellant and the (Head Clerk). They later went to meet
Poonam Devi, who also made the same demand and directed
them to come on 23.06.2011 in the evening near the residence
of the Circle Officer with further assurance that she will also
accompany them.
15. Accordingly, he submitted his report which led
to constitution of Trap Team and after completion of
formalities, they went to Gaya and reached near Millat
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
10/54
Hospital. Though Poonam Devi failed to appear, they later,
moved to the Circle Officer’s residence. The complainant
handed over the money, the bribe was accepted by him
whereafter he was caught and his fingers were put in the
solution which turned pink. Thereafter, in the presence of the
independent witnesses, the formalities were completed and he
was arrested.
16. During the cross examination, the P.W.-1 failed
to identify the appellant, Sultan Ahmad. He further informed
that the complainant, Priya Sharma had submitted an
application before the Circle Officer, Belaganj for getting the
possession of the land which was allotted by the Government
to her husband. The P.W.-1 further stated that he had taken a
private vehicle to move to Belaganj but later made the
statement that he had taken the bus to Belaganj from Mithapur
Bus Stand. He further denied the fact that the complainant had
brought the independent witnesses from her own village in
whose presence, the trap process was completed.
17. P.W.-2 is the Deputy S.P., Nand ji Singh
posted with ‘the Bureau’ Patna. He was heading the Trap
Team and after getting an order on 23.06.2011 and once the
complaint was verified through P.W.-1, Dinesh Tiwary, they
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
11/54
went to the place and once got the signal caught hold of the
accused-appellant, Sultan Ahmad from whom the money was
recovered.
18. This P.W. stated that Poonam Devi did not come
to the place as had assured, whereafter they went to the
appellant Sultan Ahmad’s residence, who accepted bribe and
was caught hold of by the Trap Team. The crowd gathered
from which two independent witnesses were requested who
signed the memo.
19. In the cross-examination, he acknowledged that
no paper relating to settlement was handed over by the
complainant though it was informed that the area of 12.5
decimal has been settled. He also did not know which of the
complainant’s agnate has taken possession of the land. So far
as the dispute about Millat Hospital and Railway Hospital is
concerned, he clarified that it is one and the same hospital
known as Millat Hospital/Railway Hospital which is/was
across the residence of the Circle Officer. The settlement paper
by the government never came to light and it was only orally
informed by the complainant that it was settled in favour of her
husband.
20. P.W.-2 also accepted during the cross
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
12/54
examination that both the independent witnesses belonged to
the village of the complainant. He denied the question put
forward by the defence that the appellant was called at Millat
Hospital and trapped whereafter, false documents were created
to implicate him.
21. P.W.-3 is the complainant, Priya Kumari @
Priya Sharma @ Priya Kumari Sharma. According to her,
12.5 decimal of land was allotted to her husband by the
government who is/was serving in Indian Army but some part
of it was in the illegal possession of her husband’s agnate (the
grandfather-in-law) and for getting possession of the said land,
she went to the Circle Office, Belaganj who demanded bribe of
Rs.10,000/- as narrated above.
22. Thereafter, she submitted a complaint with ‘the
Bureau’. Later, verification took place when the demand was
again made and the Circle Officer, Belaganj directed her to
meet the Head Clerk who assured that on the next day, she will
be accompanying them to the Circle Officer’s residence. Later,
as Poonam Devi failed to present herself whereafter, they
went to the Circle Officer’s residence . The demand was made,
payment made. She, thereafter, signaled which led to the Trap
Team arriving and the accused was caught red handed. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
13/54
post trap process was completed thereafter.
23. During the cross-examination, she stated that an
application was submitted for getting possession of the land
before the Circle Officer. She further denied the fact that any
Title Suit was pending when she made the application. Upon
query, the P.W.-3 again denied of signing any Vakalatnama or
being part of the any written statement submitted in Title Suit
No. 170 of 2011. According to the P.W.-3, while she was
taking care of the Circle Office matter, her husband was
looking after the civil suit case. The lady denied that both the
independent witnesses, Ayush Kumar and Randhir Sharma
belonged to her own village Silonja.
24. P.W.-4 Dr. Sudesh Yadav, Member of the
Trap Team narrated the same story as stated by other P.Ws.
According to this witness, Sanjay Chaturvedi and Sanjay
Kumar Singh, the two Constables with the Trap Team caught
hold of the two hands of the appellant, Sultan Ahmad. During
the cross examination, the P.W.-4 accepted that both the
independent witnesses were not locals and she had no
knowledge about the verification having been done earlier.
25. P.W.-5 is Ashok Vardhan, the Principal
Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
14/54
Patna and a formal witness who signed the sanction order to
go ahead with the trial of the appellant, Sultan Ahmad. He
verified the documents/signature put in by him by which the
sanction order was given.
26. P.W.-6 is Zorawar Pd. Singh, Sub-Inspector
of Police and the member of the Trap Team. He also narrated
the same story and during the cross-examination, has accepted
that the locals were not made witnesses to the said trap. The
appellant, Sultan Ahmad was arrested inside his house and
chose to ignore the question whether in the post trap
memorandum, the number of the notes which were
recovered/seized were recorded or not.
27. P.W.-7 is Anup Kumar, the Assistant
Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,
Bhagalpur. He is formal witness who submitted the FSL
report relating to the trap.
28. P.W.-8, Vandana Preyeshi, again is the formal
witness and an IAS Officer. She was posted at the relevant
time as the District Magistrate, Gaya and sanctioned the
prosecution of the Head Clerk, Poonam Devi. She identified
the document/signature.
29. P.W.-9 is the Additional S.P., Economic
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
15/54
Offence Unit, Patna who at the relevant time was posted as
the DSP of ‘the Bureau’, Patna. The story narrated by the
other Police Officials has been repeated by this witness and
during the cross-examination, he accepted that there was a
Title suit pending between the complainant and her husband
on the one side and her grand-father-in-law on the other side
since May, 2011 on the land which the complainant claimed to
have been allotted by the Government. He further stated that
the complainant had forcefully informed him that the land
which has been allotted by the Government is under their
physical possession.
30. P.W.10 is Praduman Singh, the Police
Inspector with ‘the Bureau’ and part of the Trap Team. He
has also narrated the same story and further during the cross-
examination accepted that he had gone through the plaint of
the Title Suit but no Khata-Khesra details were there.
31. P.W.-11 is Jai Prakash Pathak who at the
relevant time was posted as Inspector with ‘the Bureau’. The
Trap Team included him and was also visiting Gaya when the
alleged recovery/seizure of the amount took place. He accepted
that both the independent witnesses were not locals rather from
outside the place of occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
16/54
32. The two appellants, Sultan Ahmad and Poonam
Devi on the other hand claimed themselves to be innocent and
alleged that they have been implicated. There was no such
recovery/seizure of the amount and ‘the Bureau’ connived with
the complainant and created the Trap story. The defence
pleadings are/were that:
(i) T.S. No. 58 of 2011 (170/11) was pending
between the parties in which the claim of
husband of complainant was that they are in
continuous possession. Thus, there was no
question of approaching the appellant for getting
the possession of the land;
(ii) no application was ever submitted or
pending before the appellants;
(iii) the two independent witnesses were not from
the Mohalla where alleged trap took place but
from the village Silonja from where the
complaint belonged to.
(iv) his dismissal from service following the
departmental proceeding was quashed by the
Patna High Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
17/54
33. After hearing the parties and going through the
prosecution story as also the witnesses, the learned Trial Court
came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to
prove the demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount by
producing unequivocal evidence. It as such held that the
prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the
accused, Sultan Ahmad for commission of offence under
section 7 and 13(1) r/w 13(2) of ‘the Act’. It further held that
Poonam Devi has actively abetted in the commission of
offence and as such the prosecution has been successful in
substantiating and proving the charge under section 12 of
‘the Act’ against her. Accordingly, the two appellants were
convicted on 24.11.2023 and sentenced as under:
Sr. Appellant’s Sentence Fine In Default of Fine
No. name
1. Sultan R.I. six Rs.5000/- S.I. for one month.
Ahmad months
years under
Section 7 of
the P.C.
Act,1988.
Further, R.I. Rs. 5000/-
for one year
u/s 13(1)
(d)r/w
13(2) of the
P.C. Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
18/54Sr. Appellant’s Sentence Fine In Default of Fine
No. name
1. Punam R.I. for one Rs.5000/- S.I. for one month.
year under
Devi Section 12
of the P.C.
Act
34. Aggrieved, the present appeals.
35. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sultan
Ahmad submits that the P.W.-3, the complainant, Priya
Kumari @ Priya Sharma @ Priya Kumari Sharma is an
untrustworthy witness. According to the learned counsel, the
complaint of the said P.W.-3 is that an application was
pending before the Circle Office, Belaganj as also the second
appellant, Poonam Devi for part possession of land allotted to
her husband for which she met the two appellants who
demanded bribe.
36. Learned counsel submits that contrary to the
claim neither any petition was pending before the said office
nor she wanted entry of name rather the case is that she wanted
possession of the land which according to her was in
unauthorized possession of her grandfather-in-law. The
submission is that during cross examination in the year 2019,
she recorded her statement that prior to the complaint made
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
19/54
before the Vigilance office, no Title Suit was pending. He
submits that this statement is/was contrary to the fact as the
Title Suit No. 170 of 2011 was already there having been filed
on 03.05.2011 itself whereas the complaint was made in the
month of June, 2011.
37. He submits that further statement of P.Ws. was
that she never signed any Vakalatnama or was part of any
written statement in the Title Suit whereas the document on
record shows that the written statement was filed on behalf of
the defendant nos. 3 to 5 in the Title Suit No. 170 of 2011
however her signature on 19.01.2012. Further, despite the two
independent witnesses belonging to her own village Silonja the
statement was that she had no knowledge that they belonged to
her own village.
38. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid facts
clearly show that the complainant wanted the appellant to help
her in getting the illegal possession of the land occupied by her
grandfather-in-law for which a Title Suit was already pending.
The same was not being in domain of the Circle Officer,
Belaganj, naturally, there was a refusal on his part, infuriated,
the lady conspired and — the trap story with the help of ‘the
Bureau’. It is his further case that actually neither the demand
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
20/54
was there nor acceptance but it was forcibly handed over only
to implicate him in the present case. The fact that the two
independent witnesses were not even examined clearly show
the appellant was implicated in the matter.
39. He has taken this Court to the statement made
by P.W.-1 Dinesh Tiwary, an A.S.I. posted with ‘the Bureau’
and the person who verified the complaint. He failed to
recognize the appellant during the trial and his case was that
the complainant Priya Sharma had submitted an application
before the Circle Officer,Belaganj. This again is contrary to the
reality as record shows that no such application was pending
before the circle office.
40. Learned counsel submits that this witness is
also an untrustworthy witness inasmuch as while earlier the
statement was that he took a private vehicle to move to
Belaganj but later changed stand and narrated that he went to
the said place on a bus which he took from Mithapur Bus
Stand.
41. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, Poonam Devi also submits that the entire chain of
the complaint theory is not completed inasmuch as despite
their complaint that the Head Clerk also demanded amount and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
21/54
assured to accompany to the Circle Officer’s residence, it is
not the case of the prosecution that she actually appeared.
However, based on the said dubious complaint, she was also
made an accused and now stands convicted.
42. Learned counsel submits that two important
witnesses namely Sanjay Chaturvedi and Sanjay Kumar Singh,
the Constables who caught hold of Sultan Ahmad were never
examined making the prosecution story dubious. He as such
submits that the learned Trial Court completely erred in
ignoring all these facts while convicting the two appellants. As
such, the appeal be allowed and the order in question be set
aside.
43. The case of the appellant is that the P.W.-2, the
Dy. Superintendent of Police posted with ‘the Bureau’ and
who headed the Team, in his cross examination acknowledged
that no paper relating to settlement was handed over by the
complainant though it was informed that the said 12.5 decimal
has been settled in favour of her husband. He further accepted
that both the independent witnesses belonged to the
appellant’s village.
44. Learned counsel submits that with regard to the
two important witnesses namely Sanjay Chaturvedi and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
22/54
Sanjay Kumar Singh, the Constables of ‘the Bureau’ who
according to the prosecution story caught hold of the hands of
the appellant Sultan Ahmad when he allegedly received the
bribe amount were not examined, no reasons whatsoever has
been given as to why the prosecution failed to present them
before the Trial Court.
45. The submission is that the inconsistent
statement of the complainant, the failure on the part of the
verifier (P.W.-1) either to identify the appellant and/or even
record the mode of conveyance on his movement to Belaganj
to verify the complaint clearly shows that the appellant,
Sultan Ahmad as also Poonam Devi were framed. The
submission is that when the chain of demand and receipt is/are
not completed, the Trial Court ought to have exonerated them
of all the charges. It is his submission that in the pre-trap
memo, the number of notes were recorded but a vague
statement was made later that the notes as recorded. He
submits that in that background both the appellants deserve
relief.
46. In support of their respective cases, the learned
counsel for the appellants have jointly taken this Court to an
order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal vs.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
23/54
the State of Rajasthan reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 310
with special reference to paragraphs 15 and 16 which read as
follows:
15. On an examination of the evidence,
there is considerable doubt raised in our
mind which qualifies as reasonable
doubt, as to whether there was
acceptance of bribe amounts by both the
accused. True, the officers of the trap
team spoke about the handing over of the
money by the complainant to the 1st
accused who handed over half, to the
2nd accused, which amounts were said
to have been put by both the accused in
their trouser pockets. PW 8 who led the
trap team merely spoke of a recovery of
the bribe amounts from the possession of
the accused and the hands and trousers
of the accused having positively reacted
to the test solution. The said deposition
is contrary to the statements made by the
independent witnesses that some notes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
24/54were found thrown on the floor. None of
the officers spoke of any of the accused
having taken out the notes and thrown it
on the floor.
16. On an examination of the entire
evidence, we are of the opinion that the
prosecution has failed to establish
beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand
of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap
laid by the trap team of the ACB. In that
circumstance there is no question of a
presumption under Section 20 arising in
this case. The conviction and sentence of
the accused as brought out by the Trial
Court and affirmed by the High Court,
hence, is set aside. The bail bonds, if any
executed by the accused, in these cases,
shall stand cancelled.
47. Learned counsels submit that when reasonable
doubt has been created, the P.W.-3, the complainant is an
untrustworthy witness, her entire statement is contrary to the
facts on record, the other witnesses have also sung different
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
25/54
tunes, in that background, the appellants are entitled to relief.
48. Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel representing
‘the Vigilance Bureau’ on the other hand supports the order
and judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. According to
him, the husband of the appellant was in the military service,
was provided a piece of land by the Government. Her
grandfather-in-law however, had occupied some of the portion
of the allotted land and for getting it back, she had visited the
Circle office.
49. There a demand was made, as she was not ready
to make payment, the complaint. He submits that
subsequently, the complaint was verified through one of the
police officials of ‘the Bureau’ who went to Belaganj and once
the demand was repeated both by the Circle Officer and the
Head Clerk, the two appellants herein, the complaint was
finally lodged and the Trap Team constituted.
50. They subsequently went to the place (Belaganj,
Gaya), waited for the Head Clerk who was supposed to come,
as she failed to appear, the complainant went on her own to the
Circle Officer’s residence, the bribe amount was handed over,
signaled. Thereafter, the Trap Team rushed and caught hold of
the Circle Officer. He submits that a fair trial took place and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
26/54
there was consistencies in the statements put forward by all the
witnesses, whereafter, the Trial Court came to the conclusion
that both the Circle Officer and the Head Clerk were found
guilty and accordingly, convicted.
51. He submits that missing of certain links and/or
non-examination of the independent witnesses and/or the
officials who caught hold of the hands of the accused-
appellant, Sultan Ahmad does not vitiate the entire trap or the
entire prosecution story. He further submits that the Title Suit
finally went in favour of the complainant vide an order dated
20.04.2015. Upon query why the two witnesses who were
officials of ‘the Bureau’ and caught hold of the accused, Sultan
Ahmad after he accepted bribe were not examined, no answer
is forthcoming. He however, submits that a fair trial took place
which followed their conviction.
52. In support of the case, learned Vigilance
Counsel has relied upon a judgment of Neeraj Dutta vs. State
(Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) decided by the Constitution
Bench reported in 2023 (1) SC 63 with special reference to
paragraphs 68 to 70 which read as follows:
68. What emerges from the aforesaid
discussion is summarised as under:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
27/54
(a) 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 Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of
the accused, the prosecution has to
first prove the demand of illegal
gratification and the subsequent
acceptance as a matter of fact. This
fact in issue can be proved either by
direct evidence which can be in the
nature of oral evidence or
documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely,
the proof of demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification can also be proved
by circumstantial evidence in the
absence of direct oral and
documentary evidence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
28/54
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue,
namely, the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification by the public
servant, the following aspects have to
be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the
bribe giver without there being any
demand from the public servant and
the latter simply accepts the offer and
receives the illegal gratification, it is a
case of acceptance as per Section 7 of
the Act. In such a case, there need not
be a prior demand by the public
servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public
servant makes a demand and the bribe
giver accepts the demand and tenders
the demanded gratification which in
turn is received by the public servant,
it is a case of obtainment. In the case
of obtainment, the prior demand for
illegal gratification emanates from the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
29/54public servant. This is an offence
under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of
the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above,
the offer by the bribe giver and the
demand by the public servant
respectively have to be proved by the
prosecution as a fact in issue. In other
words, mere acceptance or receipt of
an illegal gratification without
anything more would not make it an
offence under Section 7 or Section
13(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the
Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the
Act, in order to bring home the
offence, there must be an offer which
emanates from the bribe giver which is
accepted by the public servant which
would make it an offence. Similarly, a
prior demand by the public servant
when accepted by the bribe giver and
inturn there is a payment made which
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
30/54is received by the public servant,
would be an offence of obtainment
under Section 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii)
of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard
to the demand and acceptance or
obtainment of an illegal gratification
may be made by a court of law by way
of an inference only when the
foundational facts have been proved by
relevant oral and documentary
evidence and not in the absence
thereof. On the basis of the material on
record, the Court has the discretion to
raise a presumption of fact while
considering whether the fact of
demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a
presumption of fact is subject to
rebuttal by the accused and in the
absence of rebuttal presumption
stands.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
31/54
(f) In the event the complainant turns
‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable
to let in his evidence during trial,
demand of illegal gratification can be
proved by letting in the evidence of any
other witness who can again let in
evidence, either orally or by
documentary evidence or the
prosecution can prove the case by
circumstantial evidence. The trial does
not abate nor does it result in an order
of acquittal of the accused public
servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is
concerned, on the proof of the facts in
issue, Section 20 mandates the court to
raise a presumption that the illegal
gratification was for the purpose of a
motive or reward as mentioned in the
said Section. The said presumption has
to be raised by the court as a legal
presumption or a presumption in law.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
32/54
Of course, the said presumption is also
subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not
apply to Section 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of
the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in
law under Section 20 of the Act is
distinct from presumption of fact
referred to above in point (e) as the
former is a mandatory presumption
while the latter is discretionary in
nature.
69. In view of the aforesaid discussion
and conclusions, we find that there is
no conflict in the three judge Bench
decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj
and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the
three judge Bench decision in M.
Narsinga Rao, with regard to the
nature and quality of proof necessary
to sustain a conviction for offences
under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d) (i) and
(ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
33/54
of the complainant or “primary
evidence” of the complainant is
unavailable owing to his death or any
other reason. The position of law when
a complainant or prosecution witness
turns “hostile” is also discussed and
the observations made above would
accordingly apply in light of Section
154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the
aforesaid discussion, we hold that
there is no conflict between the
judgments in the aforesaid three cases.
70. Accordingly, the question referred
for consideration of this Constitution
Bench is answered as under:
In the absence of evidence of the
complainant (direct/primary,
oral/documentary evidence) it is
permissible to draw an inferential
deduction of culpability/guilt of a
public servant under Section 7 and
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
34/5413(2) of the Act based on other
evidence adduced by the prosecution.”
53. Learned counsel for ‘the Bureau’ further relies
on another case of State of Karnataka vs. Chandrasha of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 (I) PLJR SC- 123
with reference to paragraphs 9.2 as also 12, 14, 16, 19 and 21
to 25 which read as follows:
9.2. According to the respondent, he passed
the bill relating to the complainant and others
on 29.07.2009 and the cheque was prepared
by the Treasury Office on 30.07.2009 and
hence, no work was pending with him as on
the date of trap i.e., on 05.08.2009. However,
the cheque was not issued to the complainant
nor any intimation in this regard, was given to
the school authorities.
12. In the instant case, the respondent was
charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of the Act, for demand and
acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from
the complainant (P.W.1) for passing the bill of
encashment of Earned Leave Surrender for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
35/54Rs.43,323/- pertaining to the complainant and
three non-teaching staff of his school. Though
the trial Court found him guilty of the
aforesaid offences and sentenced him for the
same, the High Court reversed the said
findings and acquitted the respondent from the
charges framed against him. Thus, this appeal
is against the judgment of acquittal of the
respondent.
14. The law is well settled. In C.M.Girish Babu
v. CBI7 and in B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P.8,
while considering the case under Sections 7,
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, it is reiterated that it
has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused voluntarily accepted money
knowing it to be bribe; absence of proof of
demand for illegal gratification and mere
A.Subair v. State of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC 587
(2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1
(2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543
possession or recovery of currency notes is not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
36/54sufficient to constitute such offence; and the
presumption under Section 20 of the Act can
be drawn only after demand for and
acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.
16. Concededly, the respondent herein is a
government servant. As per Section 19 of the
Act, to proceed against any public servant of
Central Government or State Government,
necessary sanction should be obtained for a
Court to take cognizance of an offence
punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15
of the Act. In this case, the prosecution
obtained necessary sanction (Ex.P25) from
P.W.11, who is the disciplinary authority as
well as the competent authority. The sanction
order (Ex.P25) clearly states that the Director
of Treasury, Bangalore, (P.W.11) after perusal
of the documents forwarded by the Lokayukta
police, such as, complaint, FIR, entrustment
panchanama, seizure panchanama, report
from F.S.L, sketch of the scene of occurrence
along with the relevant documents pertaining
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
37/54
to the case including the statements of
witnesses and also the statement of the
respondent, accorded sanction to initiate
prosecution against the respondent. Therefore,
we do not find any procedural irregularity in
grant of sanction. It was also deposed by the
sanctioning authority (P.W.11) that after going
through all these documents which were made
available to him by the Lokayukta Police and
after satisfying himself that there was a prima
facie case to initiate the prosecution against
the respondent and after having arrived at
such satisfaction, he accorded sanction
(Ex.P.25). Thus, it is clear that the prosecution
initiated the proceedings against the
respondent, after obtaining the sanction order
from the competent authority.
19. Thus, from the aforesaid materials, it is
absolutely clear that the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.3 read with the evidence of P.W.4 and
P.W.5 along with Investigating Officers
(P.W.10 and P.W.12) who supported the case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
38/54
of the prosecution in entirety about ‘demand’
and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount and also
recovery of the same from the possession of
the respondent.
21. It is settled law that the two basic facts
viz., ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of
gratification have been proved, the
presumption under Section 20 can be invoked
to the effect that the gratification was
demanded and accepted as a motive or reward
as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act.
However, such presumption is rebuttable.
Even on the basis of the preponderance of
probability, the accused can rebut the same. In
the present case, the prosecution proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt, in respect of
the ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe
amount from the complainant and recovery of
tainted currency notes from the possession of
the respondent. The said operation is preceded
by recording of the demand in the tape
recorder. In such circumstances, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
39/54
respondent has to rebut the presumption by
disproving the case of the prosecution either
in the cross- examination of the prosecution
side witnesses or by adducing material
evidence that the receipt of Rs.2,000/- was not
a bribe amount, but a legal fee or repayment
of loan. However, he failed to do so and on the
contrary, we find the prosecution to have
proved the case beyond any doubt.
22. Though the respondent in his statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C as well as
before the Lokayukta Police, stated that there
were loan transactions between himself and
the complainant; 8 to 10 days prior to the date
of incident the complainant borrowed a hand
loan of Rs.2,000/- from the respondent; and
when the respondent pressurized the
complainant to return the loan amount, the
present false case was registered against him,
there was absolutely no evidence either in oral
or documentary adduced to substantiate the
same. It is an admitted fact that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
40/54
complainant was working in a private aided
school and the respondent was working as
First Division Assistant in the Office of the
Sub Treasury, Afzalpur. There was no material
evidence produced to the effect that both were
related closely to each other so as to grant a
hand loan and to prove the grant of loan. In
the absence of such material evidence
produced, the plea so taken by the respondent,
seems to be unbelievable. Therefore, it can
safely be inferred that the respondent had
received or accepted the currency notes on his
own volition and the testimony of P.W.1 to
P.W.5 including the testimony of P.W.10 and
P.W.12 would go to show the demand,
acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount
from the possession of the respondent and the
prosecution proved the charges framed
against the respondent beyond reasonable
doubt.
23. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find
that the trial Court based on the oral and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
41/54
documentary evidence adduced by the parties,
rightly found the respondent guilty of the
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13
(1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act and
sentenced him for the same. However, the
High Court by placing reliance on the
decision of this Court in A.Subair‘s case
(supra), held that since no work was pending
with the respondent as on the date of trap, the
ingredient to attract and complete the offences
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Act was not met. The
view so taken by the High Court is
unsustainable as the decision of this Court in
A.Subair‘s case (supra) did not support the
view. It was a case where the complainant was
not even examined and there were
discrepancies in the evidence of the other
witnesses. In the present case, we do not find
such infirmities. Insofar as the reference to
sub section (3) to Section 20 regarding the
triviality of the gratification, the act sought or
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
42/54
performed, and the amount demanded cannot
be considered in isolation to each other. The
value of gratification is to be considered in
proportion to the act to be done or not done,
to forbear or to not forebear, favour or
disfavour sought, so as to be trivial to
convince the Court, not to draw any
presumption of corrupt practice. It is also not
necessary that only if substantial amount is
demanded, the presumption can be drawn. The
overall circumstances and the evidence will
also have to be looked into. Section 20 would
come into operation only when there is no
nexus between the demand and the action
performed or sought to be performed. But,
when the fact of receipt of payment or an
agreement to receive the gratification stands
proved, there is a clear case of nexus or
corroboration and the presumption itself is
irrelevant. Section 20 gets attracted when it is
proved that the public servant has accepted or
agreed to accept any gratification other than
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
43/54
legal remuneration and in that case,
presumption is that it is the motive or reward
for any of the acts covered under Section 7, 11
or 13(1)(b) of the Act. The presumption under
Section 20 is similar to Section 118 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the
onus is on the accused to prove that he is not
guilty of the offences charged. The first two
limbs under sub- sections (1) and (2) of
Section 13 make it clear that adequacy of
consideration is irrelevant to draw the
presumption. That apart, sub-section (3) only
grants a discretion to Court to decline from
drawing any presumption if the amount is so
trivial so that such inference of corruption is
not fairly possible in the facts of the case.
Therefore, it is not a rule but an exception
available to the Court to exercise its
discretionary power in the facts and
circumstances of the case. In the present facts
of the case, we are not inclined to exercise
such discretion. As such, the judgment of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
44/54
acquittal passed by the High Court is illegal,
erroneous and contrary to the materials on
record.
24. We are conscious of the fact that in an
appeal against acquittal, if two views are
possible and the Court below has acquitted
the accused, the appellate Court would not be
justified in setting aside the acquittal merely
because the other view is also possible. In the
present case, the recovery of bribe amount
from the respondent having been proved, the
explanation offered by the respondent in the
absence of any concrete material, is clearly of
the wall. Once the aspects of ‘demand’ and
‘acceptance’ of the bribe amount having been
established beyond doubt, in our opinion, no
two views are possible in the matter, and thus
the approach adopted by the High Court is
perverse and liable to be interfered with.
25. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands
allowed by setting aside the judgment and
order passed by the High Court and by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
45/54
restoring the judgment and order passed by
the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to
take necessary steps to secure the respondent
and commit him in prison to undergo the
remaining period of sentence and to recover
the fine imposed on him.”
54. The last case cited by the learned counsel is of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sita Soren vs. Union
of India reported in AIR 2024 SC-1701 with reference to
para-188.11 which read as follows:
188.11. The offence of bribery is
agnos-tic to the performance of the agreed action
and crystallizes on the exchange of illegal
gratification. It does not matter whether the vote
is cast in the agreed direction or if the vote is cast
at all. The offence of bribery is complete at the
point in time when the legislator accepts the
bribe;
55. Having heard the parties and perusing the
record as also the judgment of the learned Trial Court, the fact
that emerges is/are as follows:
(i) the lady Priya Sharma, the complainant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
46/54of the case and P.W.-3 alleged that for
getting possession of the certain piece of
the land which was allotted to her husband,
a military man by the government, she
visited the Circle Office, a demand of
Rs.10,000/- was made, Rs.8000/- for the
Circle Officer and Rs.2000/- for the Head
Clerk.
(ii) as she was not interested in making
payment, the complaint was made before
the Vigilance Bureau.
(iii) it got verified through P.W.-1, Dinesh
Tiwary whereafter, the complaint was
lodged, Trap Team constituted under P.W.-
2,Nand Jee Singh.
(iv) they visited to Belaganj, Gaya waited
for some time as the lady, Head Clerk
(appellant, Poonam Devi) was supposed to
accompany them to the Circle Officer’s
residence.
(v) however, as she failed to present
herself, the complainant went her own,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
47/54
offered bribe money accepted, she signaled
which followed the trap.
(vi) this led to the filing of chargesheet,
cognizance taken and rolling of the trial in
which the two appellants stand convicted
and sentenced as recorded above.
56. This Court has already taken note of the
submissions of the appellants on the statements made by the
P.W.-3, Priya Kumari @ Priya Sharma @ Priya Kumari
Sharma to show that despite the Title Suit pending between
her grandfather-in-law on one side and the complainant, her
husband and father-in-law on the other hand side vide Title
Suit 170 of 2011, she wanted the Circle Officer to commit
illegality by getting a part of the piece of land in the
possession of grandfather-in-law back to her family.
57. According to the learned counsels for the
appellants, the complainant fattered on informing whether a
proper petition was pending before the Circle Office, Belaganj
or not. Further, though the complainant claimed that when she
visited the Circle Office, no Title Suit was pending which is
contrary to the facts on record that has emerged inasmuch as
on 13.05.2011 itself, the Title Suit No. 170 of 2011 came to be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
48/54
filed in which she was one of the defendant along with her
husband and father-in-law, the plaintiff being her grandfather-
in-law.
58. Further and again contrary to the statement
made during the cross examination that while she was
pursuing the case before the Circle office, the husband was
taking care of Title Suit, the fact remains that not only she
signed the Vakalatnama but had also put in her signature on
the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants. This
makes her an untrustworthy witness.
59. Same is the case of P.W.-1 and he too cannot be
put in the category of trustworthy witness inasmuch as,
according to him, the said witness visited Belaganj in a private
vehicle. Later he changed his stand and stated that he took a
bus from Mithapur Bus Stand. During the trial, he failed to
even recognize the appellant, Sultan Ahmad. This makes his
presence at the place of occurrence doubtful. He also informed
the Trial Court that an application of complainant was pending
before the Circle office, Belaganj which is contrary to the fact
as the finding is that no application whatsoever of the
complainant was pending before the Circle office.
60. The P.W.-02, the DSP and the head of the Trap
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
49/54
Team has cleared the air inasmuch as he has acknowledged
that no application of the complainant was pending before the
Circle office and further accepted the fact that the witnesses
belonged to the village of the complainant.
61 This Court cannot further ignore the fact that
two of the most important witnesses namely Sanjay
Chaturvedi and Sanjay Kumar Singh, the Constables who
allegedly caught hold of the appellant, Sultan Ahmad hands
when he accepted the bribe were not examined/cross-
examined. No reason whatsoever has been recorded as to why
the prosecution side failed to get them examined.
62. Same is the case with the two independent
witnesses namely Ayush Kumar and Randhir Sharma. They
belonged to the village Silonja from where the complainant
comes from, still they were not examined. The case of the
prosecution is that after the appellant, Sultan Ahmad was
caught taking the bribe, a crowd gathered from which two
independent witnesses were requested to stand and in their
presence, the entire process were completed.
63. The place of trap is near Millat
Hospital/Karimganj which is 25 kilometers away from
Silonja, still, the two witnesses who were picked up by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
50/54
Trap Team from the crowd surprisingly belonged to the
village Silonja from where the complainant belongs to.
Worse, they were not examined and the prosecution has also
not given any reason why the two independent witnesses
were not examined/cross-examined.
64. The aforesaid facts inasmuch as absence of
any application before the Circle Office, the presence of
Title Suit, the alleged failure of the Head Clerk to appear at
the scene, the inconsistent statements of P.W.-3 as also other
witnesses make the case of acceptance of bribe in the
presence of independent witnesses doubtful inasmuch as in
the opinion of the Court, the chain of demand and
acceptance is/are not completed.
65. In that background, the case put forward by
the appellants of Madan Lal (supra) becomes important.
When on the examination of the witness, if considerable
doubt raises in the mind which qualifies as reasonable doubt
whether there was acceptance of bribe or not, the benefit of
doubt has to be extended to the appellants.
66. On the other hand, so far as the case laws put
forward by the learned Vigilance Counsel relating to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
51/54
Neeraj Datta (supra) are concerned, the same shall come
into picture only when the prosecution is able to prove that
the demand of bribery and acceptance chain is completed.
67. Though this Court has to be in confirmity with
the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeraj
Dutta (supra) case but the same shall be applicable only
when the facts of the case matches inasmuch as the demand
and acceptance is completed. Where there is reasonable
doubt, as in the present case, the relief has to be extended to
the appellants. Unless the prosecution is able to prove the
demand of illegal gratification and its acceptance, the
applicability of Neeraj Datta (supra) case shall not come into
picture.
68. Again, so far as the case of State of
Karnataka vs. Chandrasa (supra) is concerned, this Court
has to take note of the observation made in para-21 of the
said order. It is definitely a settled law that the basic facts of
demand and acceptance of gratification has to be proved
which in the opinion of the Court, in the present case, the
prosecution has not been able to prove. Thus, the order of
the State of Karnataka (supra) shall also be not applicable in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
52/54
the present case.
69. The last judgment of Sita Soren (supra) is
also of no help as this Court has repeatedly held that in the
present case the prosecution has failed to complete the chain
of demand and acceptance on the part of the appellants.
70. While this Court echoes the observation made
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sita Soren (supra) case
that the offence of bribery is agnostic to have performance of
the agreed action and crystallizers on the exchange of illegal
gratification, in the present case, clearly the same has not
been proved beyond reasonable doubt as the
examination/cross examination of P.W.-3 who is the main
witness of the complaint clearly shows that she is an
untrustworthy witness.
71. The complainant repeatedly flip flopped on
the pendency of the application and/or the pendency of the
Title Suit before the Court and/or her role in the said Title
Suit. In the chain of event, the Head Clerk was supposed to
be present and it is not the case of the prosecution that as
alleged, she presented herself and accompanied the
complainant to the Circle Officer’s residence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
53/54
72. The two independent witnesses of Silonja
though allegedly picked up from the crowd were also not
examined. Same is the case with the two important Trap
Team members who caught hold of the hands of the
accused-appellant, Sultan Ahmad. They too were not
examined.
73. This Court in that background safely holds
that entire chain is not completed and thus the
judgment/orders put forward by the learned Vigilance
Counsel do not come to the aid of the Vigilance Bureau. This
lead the Court to only one conclusion; the prosecution has
not been able to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt.
74. In that circumstances, the order dated
24.11.2023 by which the conviction of appellant, Sultan
Ahmad under sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of ‘the Act’ and
the second appellant Poonam Devi under section 12 of ‘the
Act’ has to be interfered with.
75. Accordingly ordered. The order of conviction
and sentence dated 24.06.2023 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Vigilance, Patna in Special Case No. 34 of 2011
(arising out of Vigilance Case No. 37 of 2011) is hereby set
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5364 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
54/54
aside. The two appellants, Sultan Ahmad and Poonam Devi
are on bail. Their bail bonds stand dispensed with.
76. Both the two appeals viz. Cr. Appeal (SJ)
No. 5364 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 5460 of 2023
stand allowed.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.04.2025 Transmission Date 19.04.2025
[ad_1]
Source link