Baburam Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Judgment reserved on 11.07.2025 Judgment pronounced on 10.10.2025

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 986 of 2004

¶5

Baburam Patel, son of late Maha Singh Patel, aged about 48 years, Occupation – Service, R/o Near Sitla Mandir, Bilha, PS Bilha, District Bilaspur, CG

¶6

... Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Office, Bilaspur, CG

¶9

		... Respondent
For appellant	: Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent	: Shri Shailesh Puriya, PL

¶10

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶11

C A V judgment

¶12

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 30.10.2004 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bilaspur in Special Case No. 05/2003 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short the “Special Act”) and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year with payment of fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, plus default stipulation.

¶13

Facts in short: Undisputedly, the accused/appellant at the relevant time was posted as clerk/reader at Tehsil Office, Bilha since 22.02.2002, and as such a public servant. His first appointment was made on 07.01.1985.

¶14

As per the case of the prosecution, on 20.02.2002 complainant Mathura Prasad had made a complaint (Ex. P-2) in the Lokayukta office, Bilaspur, alleging that on 15.02.2002 when he approached the accused/appellant in connection with

¶15

2

¶16

the separation of land account of his father under due authorization, he demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/-, which eventually was settled for Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant was asked to bring Rs. 1,500/- on 22.02.2002. On the application of the complainant, action was ordered by the Superintendent of Police, crime was registered in the presence of the Panch witnesses; 15 currency notes of 100 denomination were presented by the complainant, phenolphthalein powder was coated on them, they were kept in the pant pocket of the complainant, he was given necessary instructions to be carried out at the time of giving money including that of giving signal to the trap party. Thereafter, sodium carbonate solution was prepared, hands of the witnesses were washed but its colour did not change. Hands of the constable who coated the phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes were also washed but this time the solution turned pink in colour, the seizure of money was also made from the accused/appellant under Ex. P-9 and P/14 whereas that of the cassette given to the complainant for recording the conversation was made under Ex.P/13. After completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed for the offence under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) 13 (2) of the special Act followed by framing of charge accordingly. The accused/appellant however denied the charge and claimed trial.

¶17

In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 9 witnesses whereas the accused/appellant was also subjected to recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC where he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, he has stated that in an inquiry against the wife of the complainant being Sarpanch of the village, he had also assisted in the same, and as he did not go by the wishes of complainant, he with the connivance of the police was implicated in a false case on account of personal vengeance.

¶18

Learned trial Court after hearing the parties held the accused/appellant guilty and imposed the sentence as described above by the judgment impugned. Hence this appeal.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused/appellant

¶20

3

¶21

deserves acquittal by setting aside the judgment impugned. He submits that the accused/appellant has been implicated in a false case on account of long standing enmity between him and the complainant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the demand of illegal gratification by the accused/appellant has not been established by the prosecution. Even the Panch witnesses are argued to have not been friendly to the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that since the land sought to be partitioned was not in the ownership of the complainant rather it was in the name of his father, there was no occasion for him to approach the accused/appellant and give money for the same being done. He also holds the authorization of the complainant by his father as doubtful. Even the seizure of the amount allegedly given to the accused/appellant is doubtful as the accused/appellant had given Rs. 1500/- whereas the total sum seized from his possession comes to Rs. 3180/-. Lastly, it is submitted that the work sought to be done by the complainant was exclusively within the competence of Tahsildar, and that he in no way can be held guilty of the charge levelled by the complainant against him. In support of his submissions reliance placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in the matter of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55, in the matter of Soundaraya Rajan v. State represented by the Director of Police reported in (2023) 16 SCC 141, in the matter of N. Sunkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2015 4 Crimes 308 (SC) and in the matter of V. Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by the Inspector of Police AP reported in AIR 2007 SC 489 .

¶22

Controverting the submissions of counsel for the appellant, it has been argued on behalf of the State that since it has been fully established by the prosecution that for ensuring the partition of the land in possession of the father of the complainant, the accused/appellant had demanded an amount of Rs. 5000/- and eventually the deal was settled for Rs. 2000/- and as a first installment the complainant had given him Rs. 1500/- recovery of which has duly been made in presence of the witnesses, it is fully established that the amount demanded by the

¶23

4

¶24

accused/appellant was towards the illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration, and being so the trial Court does not appear to have misdirected itself while writing the impugned judgment holding the accused/appellant guilty and imposing the sentence mentioned above. In sum and substance, the argument of the State counsel is that the prosecution has duly established its case leaving no room for doubt and so also the trial court too has been fully justified while appreciating the same in its proper perspective, the well merited judgment does not need any interference in this appeal.

¶25

Complainant Mathura Prasad Yadav (PW-2) has stated that his father had given an application in the Tehsil office for separation of the account two years prior to the date of incident. He has stated that as his father was having feeble health, he used to take him to the Tehsil office on bicycle, and that as the proceedings were not going on in proper pace, his father had asked him to contact the concerned clerk. According to this witness, when he met the accused/appellant, demand of Rs. 5000/- was made by him which ultimately was settled at Rs. 2000/-. He has stated that as he was not willing to give money to the accused/appellant, he made a complaint in the Lokayukta office vide Ex. P-2 along with authorization letter of his father (Ex.P-3), on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered. 15 currency notes of 100 denomination were presented by the complainant, phenolphthalein powder was coated on them, they were kept in the right pant pocket of the complainant, he was given necessary instructions to be carried out at the time of giving money including that of giving signal to the trap party. Thereafter, sodium carbonate solution was prepared, hands of the witnesses were washed but its colour did not change. Hands of the constable who coated the phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes were also washed but this time the solution turned pink in colour. Preliminary panchnama (Ex.P-5) was prepared and trap party was constituted and approached the spot. Complainant then met the accused/appellant in his office and told him that he had brought the money as was asked by him. Thereupon, he took out the money from his pant pocket and gave it to the

¶26

5

¶27

accused/appellant which he kept in his right pant pocket. On receiving the signal, the trap party entered the office of the accused/appellant and recovered an amount of Rs. 1500/- from his pant pocket. According to this witness, he had also recorded the conversation between him and the accused while giving money. Transcript of the recorded conversation is Ex. P-6. Hands of the accused/appellant were washed in the sodium carbonate solution, colour of which had turned pink. Right pocket of the pant of the accused/appellant was also washed in the sodium carbonate solution, and the colour of which had become pink. The solution was preserved in bottles and the same were duly sealed. On hearing the conversation, the complainant understood his voice but could not understand the voice of the accused/appellant being unclear. He has stated that the authorization letter given by his father was not submitted by him in the Tehsil office, but he had submitted it for the first time in the office of Lokayukta while making the complaint dated 22.02.2002. He has stated that the authorization letter was not submitted in the Tehsil office for the reason that it was not in existence at that time.

¶28

According to the complainant, his wife was Sarpanch from 1994 to 1999. He has stated that he had collected money from the villagers towards Patta, but he kept it with him and did not deposit to the Patwari though he had asked him to do that. He has further stated that during pendency of the application, the Patwari had told him in the Court that his application would not be processed until he deposited the amount collected by him. Patwari is also stated to have told the same thing to the accused/appellant. He has clarified that the accused/appellant had asked him to deposit the amount collected by him from the villagers towards fee for Patta. He has reiterated that he was not aware whether the amount demanded by the accused/appellant was for bribe or towards the fee for Patta. He has further stated that he was not aware whether the accused/appellant had demanded bribe from him or not. He has stated that the accused/appellant had demanded Rs. 1,500/- from him which he took as bribe. He has stated that his father’s name was mentioned in the list of BPL though he was having 10 acres of land, which was prepared at the

¶29

6

¶30

time when his wife was Sarpanch. He has admitted that the persons having less than 5 acres of land can only be placed in BPL list. This witness has further stated that his father had given the application for separation of the land account in his own name and his two sons, but the accused/appellant had asked him (this witness) to keep his sisters also present in the Court though he had not made any application for entering their name in the land record as they had already expressed their mind not to have the share in the ancestral property. He has admitted that as the names of his sisters were also to be entered in the land record, they were annoyed with the accused/appellant . In cross examination, he has stated that when his wife was Sarpanch, a complaint against her was made, and in the inquiry accused/appellant had also participated. In the inquiry there was some recovery which was to be made from her. This witness has also stated that he had requested the accused/appellant to sit over the complaint against his wife and not to proceed against her. He has admitted that the report (Ex.P-2) was drafted as was told by SP (Lokayukta) and that while writing the complaint he did not read all the documents.

¶31

Dr. S. C. Vishwas (PW-3) – a member of the trap party has stated that the accused/appellant had taken out money from the left pocket and kept it there. He has also stated that apart from Rs. 1500/- an amount of Rs. 1680/- was also seized from the accused/appellant. S.P. Vira (PW-8) – one of the members of the trap party has stated that he had taken out the money from the back pocket of the accused/appellant. Ramesh Kumar Shukla (PW-9) another member of the trap party has stated that the paper on which the number of the currency notes were written, was not submitted in this case. He has admitted that the money was not recovered from the accused/appellant directly. He has stated that the authorization letter (Ex. P-3) was not seized from the Tehsil office.

¶32

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

7

¶34

Before proceeding to deal with the evidence of the witness, this Court thinks it proper to have a look at the legal position holding the ground. In the matter of B. Jayaraj (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:-

¶35

“7. In so far 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., 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 183 : 2010(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 636 : (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I., 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 134 : 2009(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 101 : (2009) 3 SCC 779 .

¶36

…….The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive in so far as the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.

¶37

Similarly, in the matter of Soundarajan (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:-

¶38

“11. As stated earlier, complainant PW-2 has not supported the prosecution. He has not said anything in his examination-in-chief about the demand made by the appellant. The public prosecutor cross-examined PW-2. The witness stated that there was no demand of a bribe made by the appellant. According to him, he filed a complaint as the return of the sale deed was delayed. Though PW2 accepted that he had filed the complaint, in the cross-examination, he was not confronted with the material portions of the complaint in which he had narrated how the alleged demand was made. The

¶39

8

¶40

public prosecutor ought to have confronted the witness with his alleged prior statements in the complaint and proved that part of the complaint through the concerned police officer who had reduced the complaint into writing. However, that was not done.

¶41

Now, we turn to the evidence of the shadow witness (PW-3). In the examination-in-chief, he stated that the appellant asked the PW2 whether he had brought the amount. PW-3 did not say that the appellant made a specific demand of gratification in his presence to PW-2. 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.

¶42

There is no circumstantial evidence of demand for gratification in this case. In the circumstances, the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) have not been established. Unless both demand and acceptance are established, offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved.”

¶43

The gist of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that to establish a case under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Special Act, the demand of illegal gratification by a public servant and the consequent acceptance and recovery has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

¶44

From the evidence of star witness who happens to be the complainant (PW2) in this case it is not clear that the amount demanded by the accused/appellant was towards illegal gratification. It is for the reason that the complainant himself has stated that when his wife was Sarpanch, he had collected certain amount from the villagers towards the fee for preparing Patta but instead of depositing the same in the office, he kept it with himself. The evidence also shows that the complainant was

¶45

9

¶46

asked by the Patwari to deposit the amount so collected. From the evidence of complainant it is also manifest that during pendency of the application, the Patwari had told him in the Court that his application would not be processed until and unless the amount so collected is deposited by the complainant. Not only this, the Patwari had also asked the accused/appellant not to move ahead with the application of the complainant till the money collected by him from the villagers is deposited in the office. Evidence of the complainant further goes to show that the accused/appellant had asked him on several occasions to deposit the amount collected by him from the villagers towards fee for Patta, and that he was not aware whether the amount demanded by the accused/appellant was for bribe or towards the fee for Patta, and that the amount of Rs. 1500/- demanded by the appellant was construed by him as bribe. As is evident from the evidence of the complainant himself, his father’s name was mentioned in the list of BPL though he was having 10 acres of land, which was got prepared at the time when his wife was Sarpanch whereas the persons who have less than 5 acres of land can only be placed in BPL list. Furthermore, from the evidence of this witness himself it is apparent that the relations between him and the appellant were not cordial as while moving ahead with the proceedings, the accused/appellant had asked this witness to keep his sisters also present in the Court which the complainant did not want purportedly for the reason that his sisters already expressed their mind not to have the share in the ancestral property. Another reason for ill-will between the accused and the complainant appears to be is that when the wife of complainant was Sarpanch, a complaint against her was there and in the enquiry for that he (accused/appellant) had also participated, and in the said inquiry there was some recovery which was to be made from her. However, this witness had insisted the accused/appellant to sit over the complaint against her and not to let the report come out. All this thus decisively goes to show that from the evidence of the complainant, it is absolutely unclear that the money demanded by the accused/appellant was towards the illegal gratification, as the complainant, as per his own evidence, was required to deposit

¶47

10

¶48

the amount collected from the villagers for Patta. In addition to this, the complainant has admitted that the complaint (Ex.P-2) was drafted as was told by SP (Lokayukta) and that while writing the complaint he did not read all the documents. This also weakens the case of the prosecution rendering its proceedings absolutely doubtful. Even the transcript of the recorded conversation does not support the case of the prosecution as the complainant himself has stated that the voice of accused/appellant was not clear worth understanding.

¶49

Furthermore, there are contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses itself as regards recovery of the amount. According to the complainant, after taking money the accused kept it in his right pant pocket whereas according to PW-8, the money was recovered from his back pocket. PW-3 however has stated that the accused/appellant took the money out of his left pocket and kept it over there. This being the position, the recovery of money also becomes doubtful.

¶50

Thus from the aforesaid factual analysis in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Trial Court also does not appear to have appreciated the evidence of the witnesses in its proper perspective while holding the accused/appellant guilty for the charge described above. In these circumstances, the judgment impugned does not appear worth sustenance.

¶51

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment impugned is set aside and the accused/appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The accused/appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stand discharged.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

( Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶54

Judge

¶55

Jyotishi

¶56

AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.10.10 17:25:22 +0530

Baburam Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburam Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parmanand Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dwarika Prasad Vipra Mahavid. and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Tandon, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

David Paul Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Ratre, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh