REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.895-896   OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.8259-60 of 2016)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT        …Appellant

Versus

NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI ETC.     ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 16.04.2015  

passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal Nos. 477-78 of  

2000 in and by which the High Court reversed the verdict of conviction  

passed by the trial court in Special (ACB) Case No.10 of 1992 and  

thereby acquitting the respondents under Section 7 and Section 13(1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’).   

3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that accused  

No.1/respondent No.2 – J.D. Patel was working as a Junior Clerk in    

1

Non-Agriculture Department and accused No.2/respondent No.1 –  

Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi (Navinbhai) was also  working in the   

same department.  The complainant-Bhagwandas (PW-1) is a  

businessman dealing in the business of sugar as a wholesale retailer.   

The complainant/PW-1 was desirous of starting a  new firm by name   

Purvi Monomal Pvt. Ltd. for manufacturing of acrylic monomal and for  

this purpose, he has  purchased a plot at Village Chhatral  from one   

Sandeep Agrawal and Manoj Agrawal.  The agreement to sell was  

executed in December, 1990 and the sale deed was executed in     

March, 1991.  Though the original owners of the plot had got the plot  

converted into non-agricultural plot for different purpose, PW-1 had to  

place the revised plan for necessary Non-Agricultural permission.   

4. It is the case of PW-1 that accused No.1-J.D. Patel used to          

time and again assure PW-1 that he would see to it that the necessary  

permission  is approved for the revised plan of PW-1.  On 27.03.1991,  

PW-1 learnt through accused No.1-J.D. Patel that the revised plan         

of PW-1 was not accepted and his application was rejected.  On the  

direction of Taluka Development Officer (TDO), PW-1 paid a fine            

of Rs.368.30 on 02.04.1991 in the office of Gram Panchayat, Chhatral  

and the receipt was produced before the TDO.  At that time, PW-1  

2

requested accused No.1-J.D. Patel with whom the file of PW-1 used      

to remain to ensure that the matter is expedited at the earliest and  

necessary permission is accorded.  At that point of time, accused No.1-

J.D. Patel had demanded Rs.1,000/- for expediting the matter and  

ultimately it was settled for Rs.500/-.  Accused No.1-J.D. Patel told        

PW-1 that he should pay him Rs.500/- on 03.04.1991 before recess  

hours and after he receives the money, he would see to it that  

necessary order of permission is passed in favour of PW-1.  PW-1  

approached       the ACB Office and lodged the complaint against the  

accused.  After registration of the case and after following the  

procedural formalities, a trap was arranged. On 03.04.1991, PW-1  

went with PW-3-Devendra Kumar to accused No.1-J.D. Patel.   

Accused No.1-J.D. Patel          showed accused No.2-Navinbhai Joshi  

to PW-1 and asked PW-1 to   give the money to accused No.2-

Navinbhai Joshi in the gallery.  PW-1 paid the money to accused No.2-

Navinbhai Joshi who kept it in his left side shirt pocket and went near  

accused No.1-J.D. Patel and sat there.                      On showing the  

pre-arranged signal, the police party came inside and the currency  

notes were seized from accused No.2-Navinbhai.  On throwing the  

ultra violet light on the shirt of accused No.2-Navinbhai Joshi, white  

3

colour of light blue light of anthracene powder could be seen on the left

side pocket of the shirt worn by accused No.2-Navinbhai.  Likewise,  

upon throwing of ultra violet light on the hands of accused No.1-J.D.  

Patel, white shining of light blue colour of anthracene       powder could

be seen on the four fingers of right hand of accused No.1.  After  

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.  

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined six  

witnesses and produced documentary evidence.  Upon consideration  

of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held that the demand  

and acceptance of the illegal gratification was proved by the  

prosecution by the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 and also by the presence  

of anthracene powder in the shirt pocket of accused No.2-Navinbhai  

and the right    hand of accused No.1-J.D. Patel.  The trial court  

convicted both accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of  

the Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment  

for one year and two years respectively and also imposed fine with  

default clause.

6. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred appeals before the High  

Court.  The High Court, by the impugned judgment, reversed the  

judgment of the trial court by holding that there was no recovery from  

4

accused No.1-J.D. Patel and the demand and acceptance by the  

accused persons has not been proved by the prosecution and  

acquitted the accused.  Being aggrieved, the State has preferred these

appeals, challenging the correctness of acquittal.

7. We have heard Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing  

on behalf of the State of Gujarat and Mr. Parthiv Goswami, learned  

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.  We have perused the

impugned judgment and also the judgment of the trial court and other  

materials placed on record.

8. It is well-settled that to establish the offence under Sections 7  

and 13(1)(d) of the Act, particularly those relating to the trap cases, the

prosecution has to establish the existence of demand as well as  

acceptance by the public servant.  In B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P.,  

(2014) 13 SCC 55, it was held as under:-

“7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a  settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency  notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is  proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily  accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position  has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court.  By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in  C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish  Babu v. CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779.”

5

9. In the present case, demand of the money by accused No.1-J.D.  

Patel and acceptance of the bribe amount by accused No.2-Navinbhai  

at the behest of accused No.1-J.D. Patel is proved by the evidence of  

PWs 1 and 3.  In his evidence, PW-1 had clearly stated about the  

demand by accused No.1-J.D. Patel for expediting the matter  

regarding the approval of revised plan for Non-Agricultural permission.  

PW-1 further stated that when he met accused No.1-J.D. Patel on      

03.04.1991, accused No.1-J.D. Patel told him that it would not               

look proper if he takes the amount from PW-1 in office and showed        

him accused No.2-Navinbhai and asked PW-1 to give the money to  

him.  PW-1 further stated that he went to the gallery and gave  

muddamal currency notes to accused No.2-Navinbhai. Thereafter,  

accused No.2-Navinbhai had gone near accused No.1-J.D. Patel and  

sat down.           On showing the pre-arranged signal, the police team  

went inside and questioned accused Nos.1 and 2.  On search of  

accused No.2-Navinbhai, muddamal currencies were recovered from  

the left side shirt pocket. Throwing light of ultra violet lamp had shown  

presence of anthracene powder in the left side shirt pocket of accused  

No.2-Navinbhai. Likewise, throwing light of ultra violet lamp on the  

hands of accused No.1-J.D. Patel shown the presence of anthracene  

6

powder. From the evidence of PW-1, demand by accused No.1-J.D.  

Patel         and accused No.2-Navinbhai is proved by the prosecution.   

The same is corroborated by the test of the ultra violet light showing  

the presence      of anthracene powder on the shirt worn by accused  

No.2-Navinbhai and the right hand of accused No.1-J.D. Patel.   

Evidence of PW-1                      is corroborated by the evidence of PW-

3-Devendra Kumar.  The trial court recorded the findings that the  

evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is consistent and they are reliable witnesses.  

Upon appreciation of evidence, adduced by the prosecution, the trial  

court convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2.

10. The High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that there  

was no recovery from accused No.1-J.D. Patel and that the demand by

the accused persons has not been established by the prosecution.   

The High Court took the view that accused No.2-Navinbhai had no idea

for what purpose the money was given to accused No.1-J.D. Patel by    

PW-1 and therefore, it cannot be said that accused No.2-Navinbhai      

had accepted the bribe amount upon demand to PW-1.  The High  

Court was not right in brushing aside the evidence of PW-1 who has  

clearly stated that accused No.1-J.D. Patel demanded bribe of  

Rs.1,000/-        and the same was settled for Rs.500/- for expediting  

7

the matter for conversion of the plot for non-agricultural purpose.   

Recovery of the tainted currency notes from accused No.2-Navinbhai  

and the presence of anthracene powder in the right hand of accused  

No.1-J.D. Patel       and the pocket of the shirt of accused No.2-

Navinbhai clearly show      that they acted in tandem in the demand  

and acceptance of the bribe amount.  When the demand and  

acceptance of illegal gratification has been proved by the evidence of  

PWs 1 and 3, the High Court was not right in holding that the demand  

and acceptance was not proved.  The findings of the trial court did not  

suffer from any infirmity and the High Court was not justified in setting  

aside the conviction of the accused.

11. So far as the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act for  

the offence under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, it is settled law  

that the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act is a rebuttable  

presumption, and that the burden placed on the appellant for rebutting  

the presumption is one of preponderance of probabilities. In C.M.  

Girish Babu v. C.B.I. Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC  

779, this Court held as under:-

“21.  It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under  Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accuse charged with the  offence could rebut it either through the cross-examination of the  witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence…….

8

22.  It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon  the accused person against whom the presumption is made under  Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the  prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt…”

Since it is established that the accused was possessing the bribe  

money, it was for them to explain that how the bribe money has been  

received by them and if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it  

will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe.  

12. In the case in hand, the accused have not offered any  

explanation to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. On  

the other hand, from the evidence of PW-1 that accused No.1  

demanded the bribe appears to be natural. The application for approval

of revised plan was earlier rejected. When the complainant and his  

advocate met TDO and on whose direction PW-1 has paid the requisite

fine amount, the file     has to necessarily move. It was at that point of  

time accused No.1 demanded bribe amount from PW-1.  While  

appreciating the evidence, the High Court should have given proper  

weight to the views of the trial court as to the credibility of all evidence  

of PWs 1 and 3.  When the findings recorded by the trial court is based

upon appreciation of evidence, the High Court was not right in  

reversing the judgment of the trial court.  

9

13. In so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned for  

conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, the trial court imposed  

sentence of imprisonment of two years upon each of the accused. The  

occurrence was of the year 1991 that is about 27 years ago.  

Considering the passage of time, we deem it appropriate to reduce the  

sentence of imprisonment of two years to the statutory minimum  

imprisonment of one year.  

14. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated  

16.04.2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos.477-78 of 2000 is set aside and  

these appeals are allowed affirming the conviction of the accused  

Nos.1 and 2 under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The  

sentence of imprisonment under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act imposed  

upon each of the accused is reduced from two years to one year. The  

respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender themselves to serve

the remaining sentence within two weeks from today, failing which,  

they shall be taken into custody.  

.…….…………...………J.        [RANJAN GOGOI]

…………….…………… J.

      [R. BANUMATHI]

10

New Delhi; July 17, 2018

11