In The Court of Special Judge, Cbi Court No.7 at Bhadra, Ahmedabad Cbi Special Case No.21 of 2015

CBI SP.CASE NO.
21/2015 1 JUDGEMENT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Filed on:-10.7.2015
Registered on:-10.7.2015
Disposed of on:- 09.12.2021
Exh……
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI COURT NO.7

AT BHADRA, AHMEDABAD
CBI SPECIAL CASE NO.21 OF 2015
Complainant:- Central Bureau of Investigation,

Sector 10A, Opp.St. Xavier’s High School,
Near Ch-3 Circle, Gandhinagar.
Versus
Accused:- Ashok Prabhulal Barot,
Religion:- Hindu,
Occupation:- The then Chief Office
Superintendent North (Works Account), Works
Accounts Section, 1st floor, O/o. Divisional
Railway Manager, Pratapnagar, Vadodara
Address:-23A,SuryadeepSociety, Chanakyapuri,
New Sama Road, Vadodara 390024.
Appearances:- Shri Shridhar Dwivedi, learned PP for the CBI

Shri R.Z. Shaikh, learned advocate for the
accused.
JUDGEMENT
1. The short facts as mentioned in the charge-sheet are that

the CBI registered a case on the basis of the written
complaint dated 16.02.2015 lodged by Shri Vithalbhai
CBI SP.CASE NO.21/2015 2 JUDGEMENT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Savjibhai Patel, proprietor of M/s.Prabhat Agencies,

Himmatnagar against Shri Ashok Barot, Chief Office
Superintendent, Works Account Section, DRM Office,
Pratapnagar, Vadodara for the offence punishable under
Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
It is alleged in the complaint that Shri Ashok Barot,
Chief Office Superintendent, Works Account Section, DRM
Office, Pratapnagar Vadodara had demanded bribe amount
of Rs.5,250/- from the complainant for 3 different matters
which had been settled by Shri Ashok Barot and that if the
bribe amount is not paid in lieu of the said work, the
Security Deposit amount of around Rs.4.60 lakh for the
tender work carried out by the complainant for Railways at
Anand for the year 2006-2007 for his firm M/s. Prabhat
Agencies will not be released by Shri Ashok Barot. The
accused Ashok Barot had demanded total bribe of
Rs.5,250/- (Rs.3750 + Rs.1000/- + Rs.500) for release of
security deposit of tender No.DRM/BRC/11 of 2006-2007.
On the basis of the complaint of Shri Vitthalbhai S.Patel,
a regular case vide RC 0292015A0001 was registered in
CBI Office on 16.2.2015 against Ashok Barot, Chief Office
Superintendent, O/o. Divisional Railway Manager, Vadodara
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A trap was laid by Shri I.Y.Bedi, Police Inspector, CBI,
Gandhinagar and Trap Laying Officer, in presence of two
independent panch witnesses viz. (1) Shri Sunil G. Bhatt,
Senior Manager, Union Bank of India, Sector 17 Branch,
Gandhinagar and (2) Shri Prahladbhai K. Jadav, Record
Clerk, United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Divisional Office,
______________________________________________________________________________________
Infocity, Gandhinagar, to nab the accused red-handed while

demanding and accepting bribe. The trap team reached
near office premises of DRM, Pratapnagar, Vadodara at
about 16.15 hrs on 16.2.2015. It was revealed that the
complainant Shri Vithalhai S.Patel met Shri Ashok Barot,
C.O.S in his office and he had discussed the pending matter
of his firm M/s. Prabhat Agencies with Ashok Barot and also
discussed the bribe amount of Rs.5,250/- The complainant
negotiated the bribe amount with Shri Ashok Barot and was
successful in reducing the bribe amount by Rs.250/-
Thereafter, the complainant handed over bribe amount of
Rs.5,000/- to Ashok Barot who accepted the same.
During the investigation, voice identification and
transcription Panchnama – I of recording dated 19.1.2015
was prepared in presence of two independent panch
witnesses. Shri Gajendra Prasad (office colleague of
accused), Shri Rajesh S. Fanse (office colleague of accused)
and Shri Vithalbhai S. Patel (complainant) had identified
voice of the accused Ashok Barot recorded on 19.1.2015 by
the complainant in the black coloured mobile phone of
make Samsung Duos of the complainant. It was revealed
from the transcription that the accused Ashok Barot had
conversed with the complainant on 19.1.2015 and Ashok
Barot demanded bribe of Rs.5,250/- from the complainant
as a reward for doing three different official matters of the
complainant.
During investigation, voice identification and
transcription Panchnama II of recording dated 16.2.2015
was prepared in presence of two independent panch
witnesses. Shri Gajendra Prasad (office colleague of
______________________________________________________________________________________
accused), Shri Rajesh S. Fanse (office colleague of accused)

and Shri Vitthalbhai S. Patel (complainant) had identified
the voice of the accused Ashok Barot recorded on
16.2.2015 during the trap proceedings in the micro SD card
through digital voice recorder. It was revealed from the
transcription that accused Ashok Barot had conversed with
the complainant on 16.2.2015 and Ashok Barot demanded
bribe of Rs.5,250/- from the complainant as a reward for
doing three different official matters of the complainant.
Ashok Barot after negotiation accepted Rs.5,000/- from the
complainant.
2. It is further the case of the prosecution that the

conversation held on 16.2.2015 during the trap
proceedings between the complainant and Shri Ashok
Barot containing demand of bribe by Ashok Barot was
recorded in a micro SD card of Toshiba make in the digital
voice recorder. During investigation, original Exhibits A
and Exhibit B containing voices of the accused Ashok Barot
were sent to F.S.L, Gandhinagar for comparison of his voice
with the specimen voice of Ashok Barot recorded in Exhibit
S-1.
The hand wash of both hand fingers of Ashok Barot
were taken in the solution of sodium carbonate. Both the
solution of the left and right hand fingers of Ashok Barot
turned into pink colour on the spot, thus this fact establish
that Ashok Barot had touched the tainted bribe amount
with his hands. The bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- was
recovered from below the compacter having description
‘16’ and ‘17’ with label ‘Sr DEN(N) BRC’ from the office
______________________________________________________________________________________
room of Ashok Barot i.e Works Accounts Section.

The exhibits collected during the trap proceedings
were sent to C.F.S.L, New Delhi for expert opinion. The
C.F.S.L vide Chemical Examination Report dated 26.3.2015
gave positive result for the presence of phenolphthalein
powder and sodium carbonate in the Exhibits C and D
which indicates that Ashok Barot had touched the tainted
bribe amount with both his hands.
Thus, in the above manner, Ashok Barot the then Chief
Office Superintendent, North (Works Account) Works
Accounts Section, O/o. Divisional Railway Manager,
Vadodara being a public servant demanded Rs.5,250/- from
the complainant Shri Vithalbhai S. Patel, proprietor of M/s.
Prabhat Agencies in respect of three officials acts and was
caught red-handed while accepting Rs.5,000/- during the
trap proceedings.
Thereafter, after receiving the chemical examination
report, voice identification reports, sanction order etc
Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the
accused for the offences punishable under sections 7 and
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, stating that the accused being a public servant
demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the
complainant for doing official favour for him and misused
his position as public servant and committed criminal
misconduct.
3. On receipt of summons, the accused has appeared. My

learned Predecessor in the office has taken cognizance.
After completion of the formalities under the provision of
______________________________________________________________________________________
Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charges

has been framed against the accused which were read over
and explained, upon which the accused pleaded not guilty
and claims to be tried.
4. In support of this case, the prosecution has produced the

following oral as well as documentary evidence:-
ORAL EVIDENCE
P.W. Name of the witness Exh.
NO.
01 Avinashkumar Anilkumar 16
02 Rajesh Sadashiv Fanse 18
03 Gajendra Santlal Prasad 26
04 Satyaprakash Madanlal Mittal 30
05 Pravinbhai Ishwarlal Majithiya 31
06 Vitthalbhai Savjibhai Patel 32
07 Sunilbhai Gunvantrai Bhatt 40
08 Sureshkumar Balaram Nair 46
09 Pradeep Balkrishna Ahirkar 50
10 Sanjaykumar Nanubhai Prajapati 55
11 Indrajit Yashwant Bedi 62
12 Hitendra Shankarlal Kaushal 70
13 Sunil Raghwan Nair 74
14 Deepti Bhargava 79
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. Description of document Exh.
No.
01 Voice Identification and Transcription 19
Panchnama I of Recording dated 19/01/2015
______________________________________________________________________________________
in RC 0292015A0001
02 Voice Identification and Transcription 20
Panchnama-II of Recording dated 16/02/2015
in RC 0292015A0001
03 Original file of Western Railway containing 21 and
22
work orders, correspondences, final variation
(page
statements, etc. pertaining to M/s. Prabhat No.2
and
Agencies, Himatnagar for tender No.BRC/11/
page
of 2006-07. No.6)
MS No.71/2015 Item No.1
05 Original file of Western Railway titled Zone-11 25
of 09-10 T No.DRM/BRC/65/2009-10 DOO-
20/07/2009
06 Original file of Western Railway titled Tender 29
No.DRM/190 of 11-12.
MS No.14/2015 Item no.3
07 Original complaint dated 16/02/2015 of Shri 33
Vithalbhai Savjibhai Patel, Proprietor of M/s.
Prabhat Agencies
08 Panchnama in RC 0292015A0001 date 36
16/02/2015
09 Panchnama in RC 0292015A0001 dated 37
16/02/2015 along with notice u/s.91 Cr.P.C
dated 16/02/2015, two rough sketches,
recovery memo, handing over memo and
seizure memo
10 Arrest Memo dated 17/02/2015 41
11 Search list dated 16/02/2015 along with 47
Inventory Memo
12 Letter dated 14/05/2015 from DIG, CBI, 56
Gandhinagar addressed to the Director, FSL,
______________________________________________________________________________________
Gandhinagar along with acknowledgement

letter of FSL, Gandhinagar
13 Letter dated 20/06/2015 along with sanction 61
order issued by Shri Pradeep Ahirkar, Sr.
Divisional Engineer (Coordination), 1st floor,
O/o.Divisional Railway Manager, Western
Railway, Pratapnagar, Vadodara.
14 F.I.R No.0292015A0001 dated 16.02.2015 63
15 Resolution dated 16/02/2015 under Section 64
165, Cr.P.C.
16 Specimen voice Panchnama dated 18/02/2015 65
along with Annexure-A
17 Certified copy of the Order dated 23/02/2015
of Hon’ble Special Judge, Court No.7,
Mirzapur, Ahmedabad.
18 Office Order dated 10/03/2015 of DIG, CBI, 66
Gandhinagar
19 Office copy of the letter dated 20/02/2015 67
sent to CFSL, CBI, New Delhi along with
exhibits of this case seeking expert opinion
20 Chemical Examination Report dated 75
26/03/2015 from M/s. Deepti Bhargava,
Senior Scientific Officer Gr.II (Chemistry) cum
Asst. Chemical Examiner, CFSL, CBI, New
Delhi.
21 Receipt Memo dated 15/05/2015 76
5. Letter of Deputy Director, DFS, Gandhinagar, Gujarat State,
letter No. case No.DFS/EE/2015/P/247 dated 06/01/2018 to
Police Inspector, CBI Gandhinagar along with examination
report dated 04/01/2018 is also produced by the
prosecution along with the list Exh.9 at Exh.57. Thereafter
______________________________________________________________________________________
the prosecution closed the evidence by submitting

purshish.
6. No documentary and oral evidence were produced by the

defence.
7. Thereafter, further statement of the accused has been

recorded under the provision of Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure at Exh.5 about the incriminating
evidences and the circumstances, which the accused
denied all of them and pleaded innocence and stated that
he has been falsely implicated in this case.
The accused categorically denied to have either any

demand of illegal gratification or having received any bribe
from the complainant.
8. The prosecution has submitted written arguments at

Exh.87.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LD.PP SHRI SHRIDHAR
DWIVEDI:-
9. Learned P.P. Shri Shridhar Dwivedi for the CBI has
submitted that in every trap case, this is the fundamental
principle as also settled by superior courts, there are three
essential ingredients i.e demand, acceptance and recovery.
To bring home the charges under section 7 of the P.C.Act,
the prosecution has proved demand, acceptance and
recovery of the bribe amount. The essential elements of the
criminal misconduct by the accused being a public servant
punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the
______________________________________________________________________________________
P.C.Act are also duly proved by the prosecution.

It is further submitted that P.W.9 Shri Pradeep Ahirkar
has proved the sanction order dated 20.06.2015 (Exh.51)
and has also proved that he had carefully gone through all
the documents i.e complaint, Panchnama and other relevant
documents and thereafter granted the sanction after
application of mind on date 20.06.2015.
It is further submitted that P.W.6 Shri Vithalbhai S.
Patel has proved the original handwritten complaint dated
16.02.2015 in Gujarati language addressed to the D.I.G,
CBI, Gandhinagar and also proved the contents of the
above complaint. It is further submitted that this witness
also proved that accused Ashok Barot demanded bribe of
Rs.5,250/- from him on 19.01.2015 and he filed a complaint
in the office of CBI, Gandhinagar on 16.02.2015. This
witness also proved that he went in the office cabin of
Ashok Barot on 16.02.2015 at about 04.15 p.m and met
Ashok Barot and discussed about the bribe amount and also
proved that during discussion, bribe amount of Rs.5,250/-
was reduced and settled as Rs.5,000/- and the same was
demanded and accepted by Ashok Barot by his left hand
and counted with both the hands. Thereafter, he gave signal
to P.I. Shri I.Y.Bedi as decided during the pre-trap
proceedings. It is submitted that the prosecution has
produced and proved before the Hon’ble Court Exh.19
which was prepared on the basis of recorded conversation
dated 19.01.2015 held in the office cabin of Ashok Barot
and this witness. Through this document, the prosecution
has established that accused Ashok Barot has discussed the
pending matter with Shri Vithalbhai S.Patel and demanded
______________________________________________________________________________________
bribe of Rs.5,250/- from Vithalbhai S. Patel.

It is further submitted that the prosecution has
examined Shri Sunilbhai Bhatt as P.W.7 who has deposed
that the complainant had recorded conversation held on
19.01.2015 at the office cabin of Ashok Barot, between the
accused and himself in his Samsung mobile phone and the
same was played on speaker mode during the pre-trap
proceedings.
examined Shri I.Y.Bedi as P.W.11, who has deposed that the
complainant had informed him that he had recorded
conversation held on 19.01.2015 held between the accused
Ashok Barot and himself in his mobile. He has also deposed
that he instructed the complainant to play the said
conversation and he played the same in the presence of
both panch witnesses and also CBI team members. That
conversation clearly shows demand of bribe of Rs.5,250/-
on the part of the accused Ashok Barot from the
complainant. It is further submitted that page 3 of the
document vide Exh.19 establish the demand.
It is further submitted that the P.W.6 Shri Vithalbhai S.
Patel has in his deposition stated that he handed over
Rs.5,000/- to Ashok Barot in which phenolphthalein powder
was applied and kept Rs.250/- with him, deposed that the
same bribe amount was accepted by Ashok Barot with his
left hand and thereafter he came out of the glass cabin and
made a missed call to Inspector Bedi.
It is further submitted that the prosecution examined
P.W.7 Shri Sunil G.Bhatt who has deposed that Vithalbhai
informed him when he entered into the cabin of Ashok
______________________________________________________________________________________
Barot, there were two or three persons seated and Ashok

Barot was working on the computer when persons sat in his
office, went out of the cabin, then Ashok Barot demanded
bribe money from Vithalbhai S. Patel and at the end of the
conversation Vithalbhai S.Patel handed over Rs.5,000/- to
Shri Ashok Barot and he (the accused) accepted the same
and Rs.250/- was kept by Vithalbhai S.Patel with him. The
said money was accepted by Ashok Barot from his left hand
and counted the same.
It is further submitted that prosecution has examined
Shri I.Y.Bedi as P.W.11 who has deposed that when we
reached at the office of the accused along with Panch No.2,
we found that Panch No.1 was present at the office door of
the accused Ashok Barot, we met panch No.1 Shri Sunil
Bhatt and the complainant. He has further deposed that
the complainant informed him that the accused had
demanded and accepted the bribe amount from him after
negotiations, during the negotiations, the bribe amount was
settled Rs.5,000/-.
10. It is further submitted that the prosecution also examined

Sanjaykumar N. Prajapati as P.W.10, who has proved his
report dated 04.01.2018 (Exh.57) and also proved his letter
dated 06.01.2018 (Exh.57). It is further submitted that the
witness also established that sample wise and during the
examination it was found that voices are the probable
voices of the person (accused Ashok Barot)
It is further submitted that prosecution has also
established voluntary and conscious acceptance of bribe
amount of Rs.5,000/- through transcription Panchnama
______________________________________________________________________________________
dated 13.05.2015 Exh.20. It is further submitted that the

prosecution also proved voluntary and conscious
acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- by Ashok
Barot through the hand wash taken during the post trap
proceedings before the both panch witnesses and CBI team
members.
It is further submitted that prosecution has also
examined Deepti Bhargava as P.W.14 who has deposed in
her deposition that during her examination, she found that
the exhibits marked as C and D were examined by her by
physic-chemical methods, chemical tests and thin layer
chromatographic technique and gave positive tests for the
presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. This
witness also proved her report Exh.75.
It is further submitted that the P.W.7 Shri Sunil G.
Bhatt examined by the prosecution has deposed in his
deposition that at that time on asking complainant, the
complainant informed that when the complainant handed
over the said bribe amount to Ashok Barot and came out of
his office, he saw that Ashok Barot was moving towards
compactor which was laid in the left from the cabin. He
further deposed that thereafter Inspector Bedi directed
Suresh Nair and other team members of CBI for search of
the same bribe amount. During searches Inspector Suresh
Nair found the same bribe amount under the compactor
and Inspector Suresh Nair picked and counted the same
bribe amount in the presence of both panch witnesses,
thereafter on the instruction of Inspector Bedi, serial
numbers of notes were matched with the serial numbers
noted down in the pre-trap Panchnama and found the same.
______________________________________________________________________________________
He further deposed that thereafter, recovery memo was

prepared regarding the same bribe amount of Rs.5,000/-
and the same was seized and sealed by putting in the
envelope with the help of lock and seal and both the Panch
witnesses (including him) and Inspector Bedi put their
signatures on the envelope and recovery memo.
examined P.W.8 Shri Suresh Nair who has stated in his
deposition that he himself along with Mr.Sunil Nair and
Mr.Vikram Makwana and witness No.2 went to that area
and discreetly checked by moving the cabinet. On moving
the cabinet Nos.16 and 17, he had seen a bundle of GC
notes. He immediately intimated the T.L.O Mr. Bedi. He
has further deposed that all team members had also seen
the currency notes lying below the compactor o the floor.
He further deposed that thereafter Inspector Bedi
instructed him to pick up that government currency
notes,he counted the same which was found five gc notes of
Rs.1,000/- He further deposed that thereafter they were
also counted by the Panch witnesses. They had also
confirmed the give GC notes of Rs.1000/- totalling
Rs.5,000/- Thereafter, the serial numbers which were
mentioned in the pre-trap Panchnama were found the same
and thereafter the said tainted bribe amount was seized
and sealed in an envelope. He has further deposed that
prior to that a recovery memo was prepared.
It is further submitted that P.W.11 Shri I.Y.Bedi has in
his deposition stated that thereafter he instructed Inspector
Suresh Nair to conduct the search in the office of the
accused Ashok Barot with the help of other CBI team
______________________________________________________________________________________
members along with both the panch witnesses. He further

deposed that during the search, Inspector Suresh Nair
found the GC notes of Rs.5,000/- lying below the compactor
having description 16 and 17 with the level of DEN(N) BRC.
He further stated thereafter, Inspector Suresh Nair counted
the said amount in the presence of both the panch
witnesses. He further stated that at this stage, the witness
stated Inspector Suresh Nair picked the said GC notes from
the floor of the compactor. Thereafter both the panch
witnesses compared the serial number of the said GC notes
from the contents of the pre-trap Panchnama in which the
serial numbers of the GC notes were mentioned which was
found to be the same numbered.
It is further submitted that the written complaint
(Exh.33) filed against the accused is duly proved by
P.W.No.6,7, 8 and 11. It is further submitted that the
recorded conversation held in the office cabin of accused
between the complainant and accused Ashok Barot on
19.01.2015 establish that accused Ashok Barot had
demanded Rs.5,250/- and was ready to accept the same. In
this regard, Transcription Panchnama also prepared on
13.05.2015 Exh.19, the same is proved by P.W.2, 3, 6, 7 and
11 in their depositions.
It is further submitted that the recorded conversation
held in the office of the accused between the complainant
and the accused during the post trap proceedings establish
that accused Ashok Barot had demanded and accepted
Rs.5,000/- after negotiation from the complainant and in
this regard Transcription Panchnama was also prepared on
13.05.2015 Exh.20 is proved by P.W.2, 3, 6, 7 and 11 in their
______________________________________________________________________________________
depositions.
It is further submitted that Article No.2 of Exh.11
produced before the Hon’ble Court Exh.23 was played
before the Hon’ble Court and the witnesses identified the
voice of accused in open court which also establish that the
accused has demanded and accepted the bribe amount of
Rs.5,000/- from the complainant.
It is further submitted that the examination report
dated 04.01.2018 of DFS, Gandhinagar Exh.37 establish
that questioned voice and sample was sent by CBI for
spectography report are of the same person with probable
identity.
It is further submitted that the recovery memo dated
16.02.2015 (Exh.37) also establish that the accused had
demanded and accepted the bribe money from the
complainant and the bribe amount was recovered from the
exclusive possession of the accused.
It is further submitted that the chemical examination
report of C.F.S.L (Exh.No.75), CBI, New Delhi corroborates
that Ashok Barot accepted the bribe amount from the
complainant Shri Vithalbhai S. Patel, P.W.6.
It is further submitted that the deposition of Shri
Pradeep Ahirkar (P.W.9) establish that Ashok Barot was a
public servant and working in the capacity of Chief Office
Superintendent, North (Works Account) in Works Accounts
Section, 1st floor, O/o Divisional Railway Manager,
Pratapnagar, Vadodara.
It is further submitted that the depositions of PW.6,7,8
and 11) prove that the accused had demanded and
accepted the bribe money as a pecuniary gain for himself
______________________________________________________________________________________
by illegal means from the complainant while holding office

in the capacity of a public servant and thereby he has
misused his official position. It is further submitted that the
depositions of P.W.6, 7, 8 and 11 prove the same fact before
the Hon’ble Court and there are no contradictions/
ambiguity in their depositions.
It is further submitted that as the prosecution has
successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubts, thus
on the basis of the arguments advanced, the accused is
liable to be convicted and punished according to the law.
The prosecution has placed reliance upon the following
reported/unreported judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and Hon’ble High Court to strengthen its case:-
(1) B.Noha versus State of Kerala, 2007(1) LRC 46-(SC)
Criminal Appeal No.1122 of 2006
(2) C.B.Rai versus CBI, Criminal Appeal No.668/1999
DOD 08.05.2013
(3) M. Narsinga Rao versus State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR
2001 Supreme Court (Full Bench) 318(1)
(4) State of Gujarat versus Kalusinh Shivsinh Rahever I
(2015 CCR 83 (Guj.) (Hon’ble Gujarat High Court)
(5) T.Shankar Prasad versus State of A.P, AIR 2004
Supreme Court 1242(1) (From: Andhra Pradesh)
(6) C.Chandrasekaraiah versus State of Karnataka, II
(2015) CCR 434 (SC) (Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India)
(7) Madhukar BhaskaraRao versus State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2001 SC-147
(8) State of U.P. versus Dr.G.K.Ghosh, Cri. Appeal No.609
of 1981 d/-21-9-1983 (Hon’ble Supreme Court (Full
______________________________________________________________________________________
Bench)
(9) Kulvinder Singh versus State of Punjab, 2007(3) Law
Herald (P & H) 2340
(10) L.Laxmikanta versus State by Superintendent of Police,
Lokayukta, I (2015) CCR 418 (SC)
(11) Phulasingh versus State of H.P., Criminal Appeal
No.2271 of 2011, D/-3-3-2014 (Hon’ble Supreme
Court) (From Himachal Pradesh)
(12) Sirajbhai Rasulabhai versus State of Gujarat, LAWS
(GJH)-2015-1-51 CRIMES-2015-2-454 (Hon’ble High
Court of Gujarat)
(13) Mukutbihari and Another versus State of Rajasthan,
Criminal Appeal No.870 of 2012, DOD 25.05.2012
(Hon’ble Supreme Court of India)
(14) C.M.Sharma versus State of A.P, DOD 25.11.2010,
Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2006, (Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India)
(15) Jai Prakash versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another,
Criminal Appeal No.1790- 1791 of 2019 (Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India Full Bench) judgement dated
28.11.2019)
(16) Vinod Kumar Garg versus State of Delhi, Criminal
Appeal No.1781/2009 (Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India) DOJ 27.11.2019)
(17) Bur Singh versus State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal
No.1598 of 2008, 2008(4) RCR Cri.834.
(18) Appabhai and another versus State of Gujarat, AIR
1988 SC 696
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED COUNSEL
MR.R.Z. SHAIKH FOR THE ACCUSED:-
______________________________________________________________________________________
11. Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused Mr.R.Z.Shaikh

sagaciously argued that in the present case, the charge is
defective and vague, simply sections are mentioned and not
the contents. It is further submitted that as the charge is
defective, so the benefit goes to the accused. It is further
submitted that looking to the oral evidence, charge is not
established. There are major discrepancies in the evidences
of the witnesses. In this case, only the complainant is the
witness. The complainant was dealing with the work of
Western Railway since 2006. It is further submitted that
prior to lodging the complaint, demand should be proved
which is lacking in this case. In the present case, no
demand is verified no demand Panchnama is prepared/
conducted. So, neither, demand or acceptance and nor
recovery is established by the prosecution, so the
ingredients of Section 7 are not proved by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the accused had also not
misused his official position on the alleged date of raid. So,
no offence is made out under Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the
P.C.Act. In the present case, no-one had seen the accused
accepting the bribe. No eye witness is examined who saw
the transaction of bribe amount. No file or documents were
recovered from the possession of the accused. So, at any
point of time, work was not pending with the accused. The
files which were recovered were not in the possession of
the accused in any manner. Later on it was produced by the
officials of Western Railway – Gajendra Prasad, who
produced the same. So, no work was pending with the
accused at that time.
It is further submitted that the demand is not
______________________________________________________________________________________
established by the complainant, he was doing contract work

since 2006 of Railway Department. It is further submitted
that 10% security deposits of 2009-2010 was released by
the accused. It is further submitted that the reason of false
implication is that the department had deducted Rs.5.00
lakh amount in the bill amount of 2009-2010 tender work.
So, he has grievance with the accused. It is further
submitted that this trap was planted upon Ashok Barot, a
small employee to pressurize the railway department so
that in future his work can be done smoothly by the railway
department under that pressure.
It is further submitted that no Panchnama had been
prepared at CBI Office, Gandhinagar means Panchnama
Part-I was not prepared at the relevant time, it was created
after that.
It is further submitted that after receiving the
complaint, phone call was made by the complainant to
accused only to ascertain the presence of the accused in
the office, but no other conversation had taken place
regarding any amount, work or demand. So, demand was
not verified. It is further submitted that the whole amount
of Rs.5,250/- were treated with powder but only Rs.5,000/-
were used. Once produced Rs.5250/- which was treated
than he cannot lose the trap amount. It is further submitted
that sufficient evidence is not produced by the prosecution
to prove the demand.
It is further submitted that Constable Makwana an
important witness is not examined by the prosecution. It is
further submitted that the amount was used Rs.5,250/- it
was treated with powder and it was not also mentioned in
______________________________________________________________________________________
pre-trap Panchnama. So, once it was decided and produced

Rs.5,250/- then how the complainant can reduce the same
on his own. It is further submitted that he stated that he
kept Rs.250/- with him, but such amount of Rs.250/- was
not recovered from the possession of the complainant and
he also not produced the same to the T.L.O which was
treated currency notes. It is further submitted that he (the
accused) had released the amount of 2009-2010, then how
can it be possible not to release the amount of the year
2006-2007. It is further submitted that looking to the
sketch, there is one big hall in which in one corner, the
cabin of Ashok Barot was situated and in the opposite
corner, compactors were placed but nobody saw him
traveling across the entire hall from his cabin to compactor
to put the money. The entrance gate is also situated in
middle of the hall where panch was present to see and
overhear the happenings, but he also did not saw the
accused when he was going towards compactor.
It is further submitted that in the recovery memo, no
signature of the accused was taken. If he refused than such
endorsement should be there. It is necessary as the
recovery has been performed from an isolated area. Thus,
the complainant’s testimony is not trustworthy and not
reliable. It is further submitted that the Panchas were not
inside the chamber, so they were not in position to say
anything about the alleged transaction. It is further
submitted that the complainant had played the mischief.
It is further submitted that no demand was verified in this
case before leading any trap.
It is further submitted that if the deposition of P.W.7,
______________________________________________________________________________________
Panch witness is perused, it is mentioned the word is

mentioned “For use” and all are applied with
phenolphthalein powder but only Rs.5,000/- were used as
trap money then what they did for rest money, the rest
amount is not produced before this court.
It is further submitted that as per the judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 2016
SC 298, when the panch did not hear the conversation
between the accused and the complainant then it is fatal to
the prosecution and the same view is taken by the Hon’ble
Gujarat High Court.
It is further submitted that as per the cases reported in
2007(1) GLH 441, 2006(1) GLR 418, 1998(1) GLH 924
(Hon’ble Gujarat High Court), when panchnama is not
dictated by the panchas, it has no value.
It is further submitted that if the deposition of panch
witness – P.W.7 is perused, it becomes clear that he was in a
position to see in the chamber, the compactors were lying
in the opposite side of the hall. If any person comes to
compactor he has to pass through the entrance gate, but he
does not see him placing money in the compactor.
It is further submitted that as per the case reported
in 2006(4) GLR 3328, (Hon’ble Gujarat High Court) in a
case where tainted bribe amount is not recovered from the
conscious possession it is fatal.
It is further submitted that if the deposition of P.W.7 is
perused, it becomes clear that Inspector Bedi directly
asked Ashok Barot regarding acceptance, no demand was
verified.
It is further submitted that Constable Zala who caught
______________________________________________________________________________________
hold of the both the hands of the accused, who was shadow
witness in this case is not examined by the prosecution. So,
it is fatal to the prosecution. Even other witnesses who
were present are not examined in this case.
It is further submitted that if the deposition of P.W.7
is read it is mentioned, “After some time, one constable
came to Bedi saheb inside the cabin with Rs.5,000/-” but
this constable is not examined by the prosecution. He was
also not tested by hand wash procedure.
It is further submitted that as per the judgement of
the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case reported in
2003 CR.L.J 4286, when seizure memo is not signed by
the accused, then recovery is not effected, it has no value.
The money recovered is required to be sent to Forensic
Laboratory, but in this case, it was not sent.
It is further submitted that as per the judgement of the
Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case reported in 2011
CR.L.J 1208, if amount is recovered from conscious
possession, then Sec.20, presumption is not attracted
(2015 CR.L.R SC 382)
It is further submitted that as per the case reported in
2014(3)GLH 305 SC,recording devices are not substantial
piece of evidence, they are only corroborative pieces of
evidence.
It is further submitted that in this case, there was no
demand verification, directly the amount was handed over
and recovered. The compactor from which amount was
lying and recovered, no swap sample had been taken. It is
further submitted that the arrest memo Exh.41 was signed,
received by the accused, but no signature of the accused
______________________________________________________________________________________
was obtained on the seizure memo/recovery memo.

It is further submitted that Mr.Y.K.Sharma, Dy.S.P,
Senior Officer was also present through out the whole trap
proceedings, but his signature was not obtained on any
document. His statement was recorded, but he is not
examined by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that Rough Sketch Exh.37
mentions the name of B.B.Zala, Police Constable,
Y.K.Sharma, Dy. S.P. but they are not examined.
It is further submitted that as per the rough sketch,
the position is chamber of Ashok Barot is the last corner of
the right side from the gate, it is not possible to see any
person the chamber of Ashok Barot from the gate. The
compactors were lying in the left side of work accounts
section left side of the gate. The particular compactor is
not marked or rounded up from which money was
recovered.
2006(7) SCC 8172, Sec.17 of the P.C.Act, in absence of
the written order to kept the investigation is fatal.
It is further submitted that if the deposition of P.W.7,
page 16 is read, it is mentioned, Inspector Suresh Nair
found the bribe money lying below the compactor. But this
version is contradictory to his version (at page 10), where it
is mentioned that one constable came to Bedi saheb in the
cabin.
2015(2) GLR 990, when no evidence is there about any
work pending with the accused, so no question of any
favour.
______________________________________________________________________________________
It is further submitted that the arrest memo was

signed by the accused Ashok Barot, but recovery memo was
not signed/signature was not obtained, there is neither any
endorsement made that he refused to sign the same.
It is further submitted that the security deposit of the
year 2006-2007 was pending for release and the incident
took place in January 2015, “ after nine years”. After that
year, the amount was released time to time. The accused
also charged penalty from the complainant, it is on record,
what had been done by the complainant for nine years. It is
further submitted that the money was not recovered from
conscious possession of the accused, not from his drawer,
cabin etc, the same fact is admitted by T.L.O at page 43 in
his deposition. It is further submitted that the money was
not recovered at the instance of the accused. It is further
submitted that in this case, there was no verification of
demand, only by telephone, it was verified that he was
present in his office. Even no conversation regarding
pendency of security deposit, releasing the same, any
negotiations or any demand offer.
It is further submitted that P.W.11 T.L.O Shri I.Y.Bedi in
his deposition mentioned the name of members of the trap
team. All remained present through out the trap
proceedings. It is further submitted that the name of
Y.K.Sharma Dy.S.P is mentioned but he is not examined by
the Investigating Officer. Even though he is a superior
officer.
It is further submitted that the panch Sunil Bhatt stated
the name of Constable B.B.Zala during his deposition that
he brought the money from compactor but he is also not
______________________________________________________________________________________
examined by the I.O.

If he saw the money in the compactor, there was no
requirement to put up the same, he should first called upon
the T.L.O at this spot that the money is lying in the
compactor. His chemical test was also not done. It is further
submitted that no indication is cited where the money was
lying in the compactor in the sketch.
It is further submitted that the T.L.O has admitted that
demand verification Panchnama was not prepared.
It is further submitted that he further mentioned that,
“Thereafter, Inspector Suresh Nair counted the said amount
in the presence of both Panch Witnesses. No chemical test
was conducted. It is further submitted that he further
mentioned that, “It is true that demand verification
Panchnama is not prepared. It is further submitted that he
admitted that, “It is true that the statement of independent
witness should be recorded”.
It is further submitted that the P.W.11, T.L.O has
admitted that, “It is true that during the post trap
proceedings, the persons who were came into the contact
of the tainted bribe amount, the samples of the handwash
of all these persons required has to be taken”, but it was
not taken.
It is further submitted that the Head Note B of the
case reported in 1985 CR.L.J 1567 (Hon’ble Madras High
Court) reads as under:-
“Head Note B – Trap laid – Recovery of notes – Delay
and change in place of recovery – Accused cannot be
convicted (Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S.3)”
It is further submitted that the P.W.8 Shri Suresh B.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Nair has in his deposition stated that, “Thereafter we

together entered in that office. He also stated that three
persons were present. But no one is examined by the
I.O/T.L.O. Statement of none of them was recorded, despite
they are independent persons. It is further submitted that
the above witness in his deposition stated that, “ The
accused denied to demand or accept any bribe from the
complainant”.
It is further submitted that P.W.13, Sunil Nair – I.O
was a member of the raiding party. He has admitted this
fact at para 14 on page No.8. He further stated that, “ It is
true that I was also member of the raiding party in this
case”. So he should be assigned the investigation. The
investigation of this case remained with Shri I.Y.Bedi from
16.2.2015 to 10.3.2015 for a longer period. From his
deposition, it becomes clear that the accused Ashok Barot
was not involved in any corrupt practice in past.
12. He has further stated that, “It is true that the forwarding
letter of the HOB is not placed with the charge-sheet”. It is
further submitted that he admitted that, “ It is true that the
tainted bribe money were not sent to the C.F.S.L for
examination”.
It is further submitted the accused had not demanded
any bribe. If the accused was a corrupt officer then first of
all he would have asked money for previous work, prior to
processing later work of 2011-12, but the accused has done
the work of 2011-2012 and the whole amount was released.
It is further submitted that P.W.1 Avinash Kumar was
not summoned by the CBI and not given any written order.
______________________________________________________________________________________
He also does not have any knowledge regarding such

agreement.
13. It is further submitted that P.W.4 Shri Satya Prakash Mittal

stated that, “ He is the final authority for release of security
deposit”. It is further submitted that from his deposition, it
becomes clear that the complainant met him a couple of
times, but never made any complaint regarding release of
security deposit. It is further submitted that this witness
further stated that, “ The security deposit of the year 2006-
2007 was pending to be released of Rs.4,17,000/- and the
file was with Mr.Ashok Barot but the payment after that
period has already been released without any demand of
bribe.
It is further submitted that P.W.9 Shri Pradeep Ahirkar
(Sanctioning Authority) was not the competent authority at
the time of giving sanction. Sanction itself is invalid. It is
further submitted that this witness has stated that, “It is
true that the material which was provided or supplied to me
for obtaining sanction was scrutinized by railway vigilance
department” means that he has not applied his mind.
It is further submitted that no demand verification is
conducted in this case as per the Chapter 8 -6 of the CBI
Manual, it is mandatory to prepare verification panchnama.
It is further submitted that nobody saw the accused
moving towards compactor opposite side to his cabin in the
account section, how the money travelled to compactor is
not clarified. It is further submitted that immediately after
the complainant moved out from the account section, the
CBI team entered in the accounts section. The presence of
______________________________________________________________________________________
the panch was constantly outside the gate of the accounts

section and also continuously saw the movement/
happenings.
It is further submitted that as per CBI Manual 10-16-
permission of court is required prior to initiating
investigation.
It is further submitted that search warrant was not
obtained from the competent court nor from the S.P under
section 165 of the Cr.P.C.
So, the accused may be acquitted.
14. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and in the
background of facts of this case, and charges leveled
against the accused, the following points have arises for my
consideration and for the determination by this court.
Points for determination

(1) Whether the prosecution proves that there is valid
sanction to prosecute the accused?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable

doubts that accused being public servant, working as
Chief Office Superintendent, North (Works Account) in
Engineering Works Accounts Section, DRM, Pratapnagar,
Vadodara, referred along at the date, time and place and
has demanded Rs.5,250/- and accepted of his own
volition illegal gratification, total bribe amount of
Rs.5,000/- after negotiation,other than legal
remuneration for extending his official favour to
complainant, thereby committed an offence under
______________________________________________________________________________________
section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
(3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable

doubts that accused being a public servant had misused
his official position, demanded and accepted illegal
gratification of Rs.5000/- from complainant at pecuniary
advantage other than legal remuneration, thereby
committed an offence of Criminal misconduct punishable
under section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention
of corruption Act, 1988?
(4) What order?
15. My findings on the above points are as under:

(1) In the affirmative.
(4) As per final order.
Discussion and Reasons
Point No.1
16. This point is relating to validity of sanction to prosecute the
accused. It is undisputed fact that at the time of
commission of alleged offence, accused was working as
Chief Office Superintendent, North (Works Account) in
Engineering Works Account Section, DRM Office,
Pratapnagar, Vadodara, so he was public servant at the
time of commission of alleged offence.
As accused is charged for the offences under section
______________________________________________________________________________________
7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of

corruption Act, prevision sanction to prosecute the accused
as per section 19 of the Act is mandatory. To prove the valid
sanction giving to prosecute the accused, prosecution has
examined Mr. Pradip Ahirkar (Senior Divisional Engineer
Coordination Western Railway Vadodara), who has issued
prosecution sanction order. The prosecution sanction order
placed on record vide Exhibit 51.
17. PW-9 Mr. Pradip Ahirkar testified that,

“I was Engineering Head of Vadodara Division. I was
competent to appoint and remove for all other groups C
officials of grade Pay Rs.4000/-. Mr. Ashok Barot was
working as Chief Office Superintendent, North in works
Account section. He was a group C officials.”
PW-9 Mr. Pradip Ahirkar further deposed that,

“I have carefully gone through all documents i.e.
complaint, FIR, panchnama and other relevant
documents. After careful perusal of all the relevant
documents, I believe that Mr. Ashok Barot Chief
Office Superintendent being a public servant has
committed the offence of taking illegal gratification.
He demanded and accepted the bribe amount and
obtained valuable things through correct and illegal
means. Being fully satisfied with the facts, I
considered that Ashok Barot CO has shall be
prosecuted in the court of law for the offence which is
committed by him. Therefore, I granted the sanction
after application of mind on date 20.06.2015, which
______________________________________________________________________________________
has his signature on each page and also has his

official stamp on each pages.”
Thus, it can certainly be said that the sanction order

has been passed by the competent authority, the relevant
evidences have been placed before the sanctioning
authority. At all level of submission, the authority has
applied his mind in my opinion and thereafter, he accorded
the sanction for prosecution against the accused. Hence,
such sanction is legal and valid sanction in my opinion.
Therefore, issue no.1 is decided in affirmative accordingly.
POINT NO.2 AND 3:

Demand, Acceptance and recovery:
18. For the sake of convenience I have discussed point No.2 and
3 together as both are connected to each other.
Learned Counsel Mr. R.Z. Shaikh on behalf of the
accused vehemently argued that it is a settled cannon of
criminal jurisprudence that the offence should be proved
beyond reasonable doubt, in the present case, from the
evidence adduced by the prosecution, it has failed to prove
either demand or acceptance of any amount by the accused
from the complainant. He further submitted that
prosecution also not verified the initial demand, no Demand
Panchnama is prepared by the trap-lying officer. He further
argued that prosecution has failed to prove the demand and
acceptance of any amount by the accused from the
complainant. He relied upon the judgement in case B.
Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Prades , 2014(2) GLH 149
SC, in which it is held that,
______________________________________________________________________________________
“Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes

from the accused without proof of demand will not bring
home the offence under section 7 of the P.C.Act.”
Learned Defense Counsel also relied upon the judgement in

case 2015 Cr.L.R. SC 382 in which it is held that,
“No evidence that the accused made demand and
acceptance the bribe, demand and acceptance of the
bribe not proved – phenolphthalein test cannot be said
to conclusive proof as the lime solution in which the
appellant’s hand dipped in did not show the pink
colour…….”
It is true that is is settled principle of law that demand

and voluntarily acceptance of illegal gratification knowing
to be bribe should be proved by the prosecution. This twin
requirements are sine quo non for proving the offence
under section 7 of the Act but in the present case,
prosecution has successfully proved the demand of illegal
gratification by the accused from the complainant.
As per prosecution case, during the trap proceedings,

complainant asked to trap-lying officer that he had
recorded the conversation held between him and the
accused in his mobile phone handset and he also produced
the same before trap-lying officer. The mobile phone
handset in which the conversation was recorded, that audio
recording was played in the presence of panch witnesses
and CBI team members. A transcription was also prepared
on the basis of said mobile conversation recording.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Thereafter, this mobile handset was seized and sealed

under the signature of Panch witnesses and same was sent
to FSL for analysis along with a specimen voice sample of
the accused and the voice recording (conversation) held
during the post trap proceedings between complainant and
the accused.
During the trial at the time of recording the deposition

of the complainant, valuable muddamal article no.1 Exhibit
11/1 Samsung duos black colour mobile phone was opened
in the open court from the sealed cover. From the Samsung
duos black colour mobile, one micro SD card of Hi-tech
company 4GB is found, which was inserted into official
laptop, audio recording file was played in the open court.
On listening the same audio, complainant stated that this is
the conversation between him and Mr. Ashok Barot which
was recorded by him in his mobile. On careful listening the
contents of the said conversation was matched with the
transcription vide Exhibit 19. The said valuable muddamal
article No.1 Samsung Duos Black Mobile Phone along with
Hi-tech micro SD card of 4GB was sent to FSL with
specimen of voice sample of accused and the conversation
held between accused and the complainant during post trap
proceedings. Parcel mark -A, Parcel Mark -B and Parcel
Mark-S1 for analysis which are exhibited as Exhibit CS-1,
Exhibit CS-2 and Exhibit CS-3. After analysis of these
parcels scientific officer DFS, Gandhinagar has opined that,
“Voice Exhibit of the speaker marked as Exhibit SP-1

and Exhibit SP-6 and voice Exhibits of the speaker
______________________________________________________________________________________
marked as Exhibit – CS-3 are similar in respect of

acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features.
Hence, it is opined that the voice sample of the speakers
marked as Exhibit – Sp-1, Exhibit – Sp-6 and Exhibit –
CS-3 are voice of the same person (i.e. Shri Ashok
Barot) with probable identity.
It is further opined that ,

“no alteration has been observed within the files present
in the Exhibit A-M, Exhibit – B and Exhibit S-1.”
This witness also deposed that all parcels Mark – A,

Mark – B, and Mark – S-1, were found in his office with
sealed paper cover with seal impression of CBI,
Gandhinagar.
19. On perusal of contents of transcription vide Exhibit – 19,

which was driven from the original source of audio
recording i.e. Samsung Duos Black Colour Mobile phone of
the complainant. On perusal of the contents of
transcription, it is mentioned that,-
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - એનું કે ટલુ તમારુ મહે નતાણું.
Ashok Barot - ચાર ટે બલનું એક ટકો છે ને.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - મને ખબર નથી, હં ુ તમારી કને જ આવું છું,

કયાંય જતો નથી.
Ashok Barot - હા એટલે જ, ચાલે છે એ જ આમાં કોઇ

______________________________________________________________________________________
વધઘટ તો થઇ નથી.
Ashok Barot - સાડા બાર થઇ જાય.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - હા પચ્ચીસો ને હાડી બારસો.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - હાડી બારસો, એટલે સાડા બારસો... ત્રણ

હજાર સાતસો પચાસ.
Ashok Barot - અને પેલાના.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - હજાર આગળનાં બાકી છે એ.
Ashok Barot - એસ.ડી.નાં બાકી છે , આમ તો તમારૂ

વેરીએશન બનાયુ એના બાકી છે , તમારૂ
કમિમટમેન્ટ તો ઘણા બધા છે .
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - હા હા, ના એમાં તો કયાં બીજી બોલવા

માંગીએ છે .
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - સર, આનું પેલો એસ.ડી.નાં કે ટલા.
Ashok Barot - એ જ પૈસા તો એ જ પચ્ચીસ પૈસા.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - એસ.ડી.નાં એના કે ટલા થાય.
Ashok Barot - પાંચસો રૂમિપયા, અઢી લાખ... તમારા જે

હોય એટલા જ લેવાના.
______________________________________________________________________________________
20. From the conversation held between complainant and

accused, it transpires that a accused has made specific
demand of Rs.5,250/-. The bifurcation of this amount is
Rs.1000/- previous remaining amount + Rs.3500/- +
Rs.500/- against the security deposit. Thus the total amount
was demanded as Rs.5,250/- by the accused. This
conversation was recorded in the mobile phone of the
complainant, having micro SD card. The micro SD card
along with original device (Samsung Duos Black Colour
Mobile Phone) was seized and sealed by the trap-lying
officer in the presence of witnesses and was sent to FSL for
analysis. As per the analysis report of FSL, there is no
alteration or tampering has been found in the recording,
means it was original and was analyzed by the Scientific
Officer. So, after ascertain of this fact that there was
specific demand by the accused from the complainant, Trap-
lying Officer has initiated trap proceedings in motion.
21. There is no such provision and it is also not necessary to

conduct demand verification in each and every case prior
initiating trap proceedings as it always depends upon the
facts of each and every separate case. When there is proof
of specific demand, in that cases, trap proceedings can be
initiated without any further verification.
The electronic gadget Samsung Duos Black colour

Mobile phone alongwith micro SD card make Hi-tech 4 gb,
were sent in its original form and same was analyzed by
scientific officer. After analysis of the electronic gadgets,
scientific officer prepared an analysis report. It is pertinent
______________________________________________________________________________________
to mention here that the Electronic gadgets Samsung Duos

Black coloured Mobile handset Model GT-S 6102 having
IMEI No.352272/05/579888/7 and IMEI No.352273/05/
579888/5 alongwith micro SD card of 4 GB make Hi-tech
and battery of Samsung make were sent for analysis to FSL
and after analysis, Scientific Officer, FSL has returned back
the all gadgets in sealed position having FSL seal to IO/CBI
and same were placed by the Investigating Officer before
this Court as Muddamal with analysis report vide Exhibit
57.
During the deposition of complainant,the muddamal
Article No.1 of sealed envelop having the seal impression of
the FSL was opened in the open court from which one Black
colour Mobile phone of Samsung duos Mark A alongwith 4
GB micro SD card of Hi-tech make were found. The said
micro SD card was having audio file and also having some
photographs. The audio file was played in the open court
with the help of official laptop. As per the prosecution
version the said audio file was the same, having the
conversation between complainant and the accused.
Therefore, in my view, there is no need of issuance of
certificate under section 65(B) of the Evidence Act as the
said certificate is only required in cases where the Scientific
officer or the Expert has prepared a separate another
duplicate electronic device from the original and when such
duplicate electronic device sent to the court with report, it
should be supported with certificate under section 65 B of
the Evidence act. But in the present case, no such duplicate
electronic device like CD, or other device is prepared or
sent to this court by FSL. The FSL, Gandhinagar, has sent
______________________________________________________________________________________
the original device Samsung Duos Black colour Mobile

phone alongwith micro SD card make Hi-tech 4 GB in
sealed condition in its original form which is original source
of audio conversation. So there is no requirement of
certificate under section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
22. Inspector Sunil Nair has prepared transcription Panchnama

as per the instructions of Trap-lying officer. Inspector Sunil
Nair made a copy of recorded conversation in official laptop
in the presence of independent Panch Witnesses thereafter,
the recorded conversation was heard carefully and on the
basis of that conversation, the transcription Panchnama was
prepared in the presence of witnesses, which was signed by
both witnesses, complainant, Sunil Nair and other
witnesses, which is placed on record vide Exhibit 19. This
fact was also confirmed and proved by the witness as well
as by the complainant and other witnesses during their
respective oral depositions before this Court. All such
verification process has been recorded by way of
Panchnama.
The audio recording having in micro SD Card make Hi-

Tech 4GB which was played in the open court with the help
of laptop was also having same audio contents of
conversation matched with the transcription mentioned in
Transcription Panchnama vide Exhibit-19. From the
aforesaid averments and evidences, it is absolutely proved
that accused has demanded illegal gratification a bribe
amount of Rs.5,250/- on his own volition from the
complainant.
______________________________________________________________________________________
23. As per prosecution case, when it was confirmed that there

is specific demand of illegal gratification by the accused,
further trap proceedings was initiated. The Trap-lying
officer has explained the role of each members and also
directed to demonstrate of chemical changes during trap
proceedings. As per instructions of Trap-lying officer,
complainant has provided government currency notes of
Rs.5250/-. Details of G.C. were prescribed in the
Panchnama, same were treated with phelenopthelien
powder. Thereafter, treated GC notes were given to
complainant and he was instructed that GC notes will be
given to accused only on being demanded by the accused.
DVR was kept with complainant so the conversation can be
recorded. Trap-lying officer instructed Panch Witness Mr.
Sunil Gunvantbhai Bhatt, who alongwith the complainant,
but it was decided not to enter in the chamber of accused
with complainant as complainant raised apprehension that
in the presence of any other person, accused will not
entertain and also not discuss regarding the bribe. So, it
has been decided the witness should remain outside near
the vicinity of office room of the accused and try to see and
hear all events.
It was also decided that after acceptance of bribe
amount by the accused, complainant gave signal by calling
to Trap-lying officer on his mobile phone. CBI team
members remained present in the vicinity of office premises
of DRM officer in the stated manner. Prior that complainant
has determined the fact that whether accused was present
in his office by making a call on his mobile phone. On
______________________________________________________________________________________
having confirmation regarding his presence, they moved

further. DVR was implanted with complainant and put it
switch on mode, introductory voice of both Panch witnesses
were recorded. Witness No.1 Sunilbhai Gunvantbhai Bhatt
closely followed the complainant till outside the office room
(hall of the accused) situated at First Floor of DRM office.
As transcription of bribe amount was done, after
receiving the pre-decided signal, Inspector I.Y.Bedi
alongwith other team member rushed to the chamber of the
accused where complainant and Panch No.1 Mr. Bhatt was
standing outside the office room. On asking to complainant,
he informed that accused Ashok Barot is available and he
also pointed out the finger at Mr. Ashok Barot who was
seating inside his chamber. Trap-lying officer discloses his
identity to accused. He also discloses the identity of all
team members. Trap-lying officers asked to accused,
whether he has demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.5250/-
from the complainant and also asked as to where he has
kept the same. On this accused became nervous and did not
reveal anything. On asking to complainant, the complainant
informed that accused had accepted only amount of
Rs.5000/- as he negotiated with the accused and after
accepting the said amount, the accused counted the same
with his both hands fingers. Complainant also informed that
thereafter, he had a short talk with him and then he left the
chamber of the accused and waited outside near the door,
meanwhile he saw discretely that accused Ashok Barot
reach near the big steel almirah / compactor on left side of
his cabin and was pretending to search some file. So trap-
lying officer asked to Inspector Suresh Nair to conduct a
______________________________________________________________________________________
search for tainted bribe amount in the presence of Panch

witnesses.
24. I have also perused the testimony of PW-6 complainant.

Complainant testified that,
“………...I asked him about the security deposit of my
pending bill. He told me that your security deposit will
be cleared……….He gestured to me and demanded bribe
from me. I told him that I had paid only Rs.5000/- to him
on that he stated that it does not matter. So I kept
Rs.250/- with me from the total amount of Rs.5250/- and
rest amount of Rs.5000/- was handed over to the
accused which was accepted by accused Mr. Ashok
Barot with his left hand, thereafter I made a missed call
to Inspector Bedi from the chamber…....”
It is also testified by the complainant that.

“………..meanwhile, Ashok Barot walked out from his
chamber and put the notes in a compactor situated in
the Hall about 30 feet from his chamber…..
Meantime, inspector Bedi and other team members
including Panch witness came there. Inspector Bedi
asked to accused whether he accept the bribe? He
replied that he did not accept any bribe. His both
hand’s fingers wash was taken which was reacted
with the solution of sodium carbonate, which turned
into pink colour. The said solution was kept as
sample, seized and sealed in two separate bottles. ”
25. I have also perused the deposition of PW-7 Mr. Sunil

______________________________________________________________________________________
Gunvantrai Bhatt, who remains as a Panch Witness in the

case, he is an independent witness. He deposed that,
“………..when inspector Bedi asked the accused Ashok
Barot about the bribe money on that accused was
reluctant. At that time, on asking to complainant,
complainant told that when he was leaving the cabin of
accused at the time Ashok Barot was going towards
compactor, situated left side in the Hall and he was
pretending to search some file.”
It is further deposed by PW.7 that,

“Inspector Bedi instructed Inspector Suresh Nair and
other team members to find out the bribe amount.
During search Inspector Suresh Nair found the bribe
amount under a compactor and the amount was shown
by Inspector Suresh Nair in the presence of both Panch
witnesses and was counted the said currency notes
which were matched with the serial numbers mentioned
in the Panchnama. Recovery memo was prepared and
currency notes were put into an envelop and was seized
and sealed under the signature of both the witnesses
and Trap-lying officer.”
26. I have also gone through the testimony of Trap-lying officer

PW-11 Mr. Indrajeet Y. Bedi who was leading the trap
proceedings. Inspector Bedi testified that,
“the complainant informed me that the accused had
demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the
complainant after negotiation. During negotiation, the
bribe amount was settled as Rs.5000/-…...”
______________________________________________________________________________________
It is further deposed that,

“I disclose my identity to Ashok Barot along with all CBI
team members……….. I asked to Ashok Barot where he
kept the bribe amount which he accepted from the
complainant, but he did not give any answer.”
Trap-lying officer PW-11 further testified that,

“I instructed Inspector Suresh Nair to conduct the
search in the office of the accused with the help of other
CBI team members along with both panch witnesses.
During search, Inspector Suresh Nair found the GC
Notes of Rs.5000/- lying below the compactor having
description 16 and 17 with the label of DCN (N) BRC.
Thereafter, inspector Suresh Nair counted the said
amount in the presence of both panch witnesses. Both
Panch witnesses compared the serial numbers of the
said GC notes, which matched with the Serial numbers
mentioned in the pre-trap Panchnama. It was seized and
sealed under the signature of witnesses and himself. ”
27. I have also carefully perused the voice identification cum

transcription Panchnama vide Exhibit 20, in this document
there are contention:-
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - તમારૂ આઉટસ્ટે ન્ડીંગ સાહે બ કે ટલુ છે .
Ashok Barot - જે આપવું એ.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - હં ુ .
______________________________________________________________________________________
Ashok Barot - જે આપવો હોય.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - પાંચ હજાર બસ્સો પચાસ, પાંચ હજાર

આપી દઉં ?
Ashok Barot - એ હા.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - બરાબર, બસ્સો પચાસ રૂમિપયા ડીઝલનાં

આપવા પડશે.
Ashok Barot - પાંચ હજાર બસ્સો અને પચાસ અને પાંચ

હજારે રાખોને.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - હં ુ , પાંચ હજાર.
Ashok Barot - અઢીસો રૂમિપયાનું ડીઝલ કે ટલુ આવશે, તમે

હિહંમતનગર નહીં પહોંચી શકશો.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - સાહે બ હવે છે ને એમા પહે લા, આગળનાંએ

આવી ગયા, બધુ કલીયર આજ હિદવસ સુધી
કલીયર, એક હજાર રૂમિપયા મિ:વિવયસ બાકી
હતા તે આપી દીધા, છ હજાર પચાસ અને
પાંચસો રૂમિપયા એસ.ડી. કંઇ.
Ashok Barot - જે હોય આમ તો કલીયર તો ના કહે વાય,

વેરીએશનનાં બાકી રહ્યાંને, તમે મારાથી
વેરીએશન બનાવડયું, એમાં મારા બાકી રહ્યાં
કાયદેસરનાં.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - એટલે કે ટલા થાય.
Ashok Barot - એ તમે હમજીને આપી દો.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - તમને...
Ashok Barot - ભાવ તમને નહીં પોસાય એટલા માટે , એ

તમને નહીં...એ હં ુ નહીં માંગુ, એ તમારે
હમજીને આલી દેવાના, તમે જે આલશો એમાં
હં ુ હા કે ના નહીં કહં ુ .
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - ના પણ, સર એ પછી આપશું બાકી રહયું.
Ashok Barot Barot - એ સોની આવતો તો કયાં છે એ, તમારી સાથે

હતો એ.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - સોની જ છે .
Ashok Barot Barot - છોડી દીધુ.
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - ના છે એજ છે , ગણી લો.
Ashok Barot Barot - સાહે બ બરાબર જ છે .
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - ગણી લો કે , ગણી લો મગજ બગાડયા વગર.
Ashok Barot Barot - એવું થોડી કરશો અમને યાર.

______________________________________________________________________________________
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - ધન્યવાદ સાહે બ, તમે બસ્સો પચાસ રૂમિપયા

ડીઝલનાં આપ્યા મને પરત.
Ashok Barot Barot - આપી લઇ જાવ અમારે એવું કંઇ છે જ નહિહ

આપણને તો…
Vitthalbhai S. Patel - કંઇ વાંધો નહિહ, તો હં ુ વિનકળુ.
The voice of the accused in this conversation was also

analyzed by the Expert PW-10 with the specimen voice
sample of the accused, which he found that both voice were
belongs to the same person i.e.Ashok Barot.This fact
suggest that the accused has demanded and accepted the
tainted bribe amount of Rs.5000/- from the complainant.
From this aforesaid averments of conversation, this fact is
also clarified that the complainant was carried Rs.5250/-
with him as a tainted bribe amount but during the meeting
with the accused he negotiate the amount and both were
settled at the amount of Rs.5000/- which was accepted by
the accused.
Learned council for the accused, raised the contention
that the amount of Rs.250/- which was kept by the
complainant for his personal use without discussion with
the trap-lying officer. This amount was also treated with
phelenopthelien powder therefore said amount of Rs.250/-
should be recovered by the trap-lying officer from the
complainant. once it was treated with phelenopthelien
powder and was also decided as bribe amount, the
complainant should not kept the same for his personal use.
It is true that the said amount of Rs.250/- should not
______________________________________________________________________________________
be kept by the complainant for his personal use. But

complainant negotiate with the accused in his chamber and
both were agreed and settled down to the amount of
Rs.5000/-. Thereafter, complainant kept the amount of
Rs.250/- with him. This fact is also explained and discloses
by the complainant to trap-lying officer in the presence of
witnesses at the relevant time. This fact is also reflected
from the transcription vide Exhibit 36 that at the time of
last episode, complainant bargaining with the accused and
after that the accused agreed to accept the amount of
Rs.5000/-. Merely on the ground that complainant has kept
the amount of Rs.250/- with him from the pre-decided bribe
amount, the whole version regarding the demand and
acceptance of bribe cannot be discarded.
28. Learned Counsel MR.R.Z.Shaikh on behalf of the accused,

vehemently argued that there is no recovery of the amount
from the conscious possession of the accused. It was
planted by the trap-lying officer, the amount was allegedly
shown to be recovered from the compactor lying in the
same office, which was likely to be kept by any CBI team
member and later on it was shown as to be recovered as a
bribe amount.
Learned counsel R.Z.Shaikh further submitted that
there are material contradictions regarding the person who
recovered / find out the alleged bribe amount from the
compactor. Regarding this fact, complainant deposed that it
was found by constable Makwana, while as per the version
of PW-7, he first deposed that one constable has recovered
the GC notes, again he changed his version and deposed
______________________________________________________________________________________
that Inspector Suresh Nair find out the GC notes. The

Trap-lying officer also not obtained the sample of presence
of phelenopthelien powder with the help of cotton swab
from the compactor, on which GC notes were lying and
found and were recovered. All the facts creates doubt
regarding the recovery of alleged bribe amount.
29. I have carefully read out the deposition of complainant PW-

6. PW-6 has narrated during his deposition that,
“Thereafter, I made a missed call to Inspector Bedi……,
meanwhile, Ashok Barot came out from the chamber
and placed the notes in the compactor, which was 30
feet far from his chamber / cabin.”
30. PW-7 an independent witness Mr. Bhatt also testified that,

“Meantime, Viththalbhai Patel told to Inspector Mr. Bedi
that from his cabin, accused was going towards Rack
situated left side of his office, when complainant was
came out from the cabin of the accused.”
With the context of above mentioned facts, deposed by

the witnesses. I have perused the map (Rough Sketch of
Works Account Section) vide Exhibit 37. On perusal the
rough sketch, the filing cabinets (compactor) were situated
at left side of office of works account section. Complainant
clearly deposed that he saw the accused proceeded towards
the compactor after accepting the tainted bribe amount of
Rs.5,000/- immediately after he left the chamber of the
accused. It is also testified by the complainant that from the
compactor, GC notes were found and recovered by
______________________________________________________________________________________
constable Makwana. In the present case, the deposition of

complainant was recorded after lapse of four years of the
incident. He is a illiterate one, and after passage of time,
some memory of any person can commonly effected and
fainted. The complainant may not be in a position to
remember the name of the exact person who found and
recover the tainted GC notes from the compactor at the
time of his deposition. But only on the ground that he
wrongly stated the name of the person who found the
recovered the GC notes from the compactor. His main
version regarding recovery of the amount cannot be shaken
in any manner in my view as the deposition of any witness
should be considered and appreciated as a whole. PW-6
complainant saw the accused when he was proceeded
towards left side of his cabin reached at compactor
immediately after receiving the tainted bribe amount and
subsequently it was recovered from the compactor.
31. In view of the above said discussion, it is pertinent to have

a look at chief Examination of the complainant PW-6,
“Thereafter, as per the instructions of Inspector Bedi,
Makwana has prepared solution of sodium carbonate
and Ashok Barot was asked to deep his left hand fingers
in the said solution, which turned into pink colour, the
same was transferred into empty glass bottle, and the
same was sealed with the signature of those panch
witness, Inspector, Sunil Naik and Inspector Bedi. ”
PW-7 witness Sunil Gunvantbhai Bhatt deposed

categorically that,
______________________________________________________________________________________
“Constable V.B.Zala had prepared a solution of sodium

carbonate which was colourless. Ashok Barot was asked
to dip his left hand and thereafter, right hand, fingers,
one by one in that solution. On doing the same,
immediately colour of solution was turned into pink
colour. Thereafter, both such pink colour solution was
shifted into two separate glass bottles, both were sealed
under the signature of himself, another panch and
Inspector Bedi.”
Same facts are also confirmed and proved by Mr. I.Y.Bedi,

Inspector / Trap-lying officer during his deposition. It is also
explained by PW-6, PW-7 and PW-11 that all aforesaid
procedure was noted in form of panchnama in the presence
of independent witnesses.
32. In case, Vinodkumar Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2015(SC)

1206, Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with bribery case
and discripacies in the oral evidence of the key witnesses
laid down various principles. One of such principles is that
as laid down in para no.22 of the judgement is as follow,
“22. …………...As a rule of law, it cannot be laid down
that evidence of every complainant in a bribery case
should be corroborated in all material particulars and
otherwise it cannot be acted upon.”
It is true that in the present case, the bribe amount

was not recovered from conscious possession of the
accused, but it is not necessary that the passing of money
and recovery should be proved by direct evidence, it may
______________________________________________________________________________________
also be proved by the circumstances and the events which

followed in sequence. In the present case, accused was
proceeded towards compactor immediately after receiving
the tainted bribe amount in front of the sight of the
complainant. Sodium carbonate solution wash of the both
hands fingers of the accused turned into pink colour, which
found the presence of phenolapthelien powder and sodium
carbonate as per the opinion of expert. At this stage it is
pertinent to mentioned here that accused did not challenge
the fact regarding presence of Sodium Carbonate and
phenolapthelien powder on his both hand fingers. These all
facts suggest that the accused has accepted and was in
possession of the tainted bribe amount which was hidden by
him by putting the same on the compactor of his office and
subsequently same was recovered from the compactor
during the search.
33. It is also not the rule of law that evidence of every

complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated.
Hon’ble Apex Court clarified that on case to case basis, the
court can decide whether the corroboration is necessary
and if so, to what extent and what should be its nature. In
short, under the pretext of minor discrepancies in the oral
evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, the court
cannot brush aside the entire evidence of the witnesses. It
is also well settled principle of law that the corroborative
evidence can be given by way of circumstances and the
sequence of events occurred during the course of
commission of offence.
In view of the above mentioned discussions and the
______________________________________________________________________________________
reasons, it can certainly be said that the prosecution has

duly proved the facts regarding acceptance of illegal
gratification by the accused and it was subsequently
recovered by the team member of CBI which was the same
as it was mentioned in the panchnama. In the present case,
accused simply denied the acceptance of bribe. No
reasonable explanation was given by the accused regarding
the acceptance of bribe, recovery from compactor and
regarding the presence of Sodium Carbonate and
phenolphthalein powder on his both hands fingers.
34. Therefore, in view of the above facts, and the discussion

and other circumstances, the events which followed in
sequence, this court to raise mandatory legal presumption,
under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, that accused has received illegal gratification from
the complainant.
Under section 114 of the Evidence Act describes that,

“The court may presume existence of any fact, which
it think likely to have happened, regard being had to
the common course of natural events, human conduct
and public and private business in their relation to
facts of the particular case.”
Section 4 of the Evidence Act, defines the impression,
“may presume”, and “shall presume”. In which first
category are commodiously known as “factual
presumption” or “discretionary” and second known as
“legal presumption” or “compulsory presumption” from
which expression shall be presumed is employed in section
______________________________________________________________________________________
20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It must

have the same impact of compulsion.
In case, M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 318(1) (FB) , Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that,
“ 14. when the sub-section deals with the legal
presumption, it is to be understood as in terrarium i.e.
in tone of command that it has to be presumed that
the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or
reward for doing or bearing to do any official act etc.,
if the condition envisaged in the former part of the
section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing
such legal presumption under section 20 that during
the trial, it should be proved that the accused has
accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The
section does not say that the said condition should be
satisfied through direction evidence. It is only
requirement is that it must be proved that the accused
has accepted or agreed to accept the gratification.
Direct evidence is one of the modes through which
fact can be proved, but that is not the only mode
which said the Evidence Act.”
It is also held that,

“acceptance of gratification – presumption is
“compulsory” and not “discretionary”- prosecution
proved that accused received gratification from the
complainant – in such circumstances, court can draw
legal presumption that said gratification was accepted
as reward for doing public duty.”
______________________________________________________________________________________
In another case, T. Shankar Prasad Vs. State of A.P .,

AIR 2004 SC 1242(1), Hon’ble Apex court has held that,
“Section 20 of the prevention of corruption Act, -
illegal gratification, acceptance of by public servants –
presumption is of influenced of certain facts drawn
from other proved facts while inferring the existence
of a fact from another, the court is only applying a
process of intelligent, reasoning which a prudent man
would do under similar circumstances. the
presumption is not the final conclusion to be drawn
from other facts. But it could as to be final, if it
remains undisputed later. Presumption in light of
evidence is ruled indicating the stays the shifting the
burden of proof from certain facts or fact, the court
can drawn an inference and that would remain until
such inference is either disproved or dispelled.”
35. From all such proved facts, the court can legitimately
drawn a presumption that the accused has received the
said bribe amount on his own volition. The presumption is
off course to be rebutted by the accused but in the present
case, there is no such fact or material produced by the
accused to rebut the said presumption.
In a case of bribe, the person who pays the bribe and
those who act as intermediaries are the only persons who
can ordinarily be expected to give evidence about the bribe
and it is not possible to get absolutely independent
evidence about the payment of bribe. Under section 114
of the Evidence Act, related with the presumption, it can
______________________________________________________________________________________
be drawn by the court at the time of appreciation of

evidence regarding the existence of certain facts as the
think likely to have been happened in common course of
natural events. Court also has to be considered the human
conduct and the all events and the facts of the particular
case for raise such presumption. Once we arrive, at the
finding that accused had obtained the money from the
complainant, the presumption under section 20 of the
P.C.Act, is immediately attracted.
This fact is also well within the knowledge of this
court that merely possession and recovery of bribe amount
from the accused without proof of demand would not
establish an offence against the accused. Therefore, the
demand and acceptance of the vital ingredients of the case
of bribery. Here in this case, in view of the above
mentioned reasons and facts and the events which
happened in common course of nature, the prosecution
have duly proved all essential elements of the offence that
is a demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the
accused from the complainant which was subsequently
recovered from the indirect possession of the accused.
36. Another contention is raised by the learned Advocate Mr.

R.Z.Shaikh that at the time of alleged incident no work of
the complainant was pending with the accused. He further
submitted that the files related to the complainant firm M/s.
Prabhat Agencies was not in the possession of the accused.
So there is no question is arises to made any demand or
acceptance of any bribe from the complainant.
I have perused the complaint vide Exhibit 33, in which
______________________________________________________________________________________
is is mentioned that complainant was proprietor of M/s.

Prabhat Agencies engaged with tender work for railways at
Anand, Zone No.11 for the year 2006-07, tender
No.DRM/BRC/11. As per condition of tender, DRM office
kept 10% as security deposit from running bills. After
completion of tender work and on submitting completion
certification, security deposit should be released in favour
of M/s. Prabhat Agencies.
Another special work tender was for the year 2011-
2012 and another work tender for the year 2009-2010. The
running bills after deduction was sanctioned to
complainant, the same was processed by accused Ashok
Barot, the then Chief Office Superintendent.
Prosecution has examined Mr. Gajendra Santlal
Prasad as PW-3, who was working as Chief Office
Superintendent, (Works Account) Engineering Works
Account Section, DRM office, Vadodara. PW-3 testified that,
“After seeing that file, I came to know that the amount
to be given in it is Rs.96,80,563/- was paid to the
Prabhat Agency and an additional amount was due. I
have also viewed and readout the files. All these files
were in the cutody of Ashok Barot. These files were
prepared and processed by Ashok Barot, CSO. Means by
accused.”
PW-3 Mr .Gajendra Prasad further testified that,

“On date 16.02.2015, in the afternoon, owner of Prabhat
Agency Mr. Viththalbhai Patel came to our office Works
Account Section, first Floor, DRM Office, Vadodara. He
came to my office and sat for a while. After that he went
______________________________________________________________________________________
to the office of Ashok Barot, which was glass

transparent cabin, both were talking which was not
audible to him, shortly Vitthalbhai came out of Ashok
Barot’s cabin. As he came out from the cabin, shortly
CBI team came inside our office alongwith Inspector
Bedi. He made an inquiry to Ashok Barot.”
PW-3 Mr. Gajendra Prasad further deposed that,

“Inspector Bedi and Nair conducted a search of Ashok
Barot. The CBI officials also searched the drawer,
almirah. During search, 5 GC notes of Rs.1000/-
denomination each total Rs.5000/-. The serial numbers
of said notes were tallied with the details of panchnama.
Panch witnesses confirmed the same.”
This witness is an independent witness, serving with the

accused in the same office as Chief Office Superintendent
and in the same cadre. He was also overall In-charge of
Works Account Department, so there is no reason to falsely
implicate the accused in this case or deposed against the
accused. For that reason, his testimony is very important
and valuable.
From the testimony of this witness PW-3 Mr.Gajendra
Prasad, this fact is proved that all three files vide Exhibit
27, 28 and 29 related to tender work of M/s. Prabhat
Agencies were pending with accused Ashok Barot. Accused
also dealt with these files and also initiate the process in
these files. This fact is also proved by the deposition of this
witness that immediate before commencement of trap,
complainant met with the accused in his glass transparent
______________________________________________________________________________________
cabin and also made some conversation and after leaving

the cabin of the accused by complainant, shortly CBI Team
apprehended the accused. This fact is also proved by the
witness that during search of 5 GC notes of Rs.1000/-
denomination total Rs.5000/- were found from the
compactor, which were counted and tallied by the panch
witnesses. Thereafter, he himself handed over all three files
to the trap-lying officer related to tender work of M/s.
Prabhat Agencies (Vitthalbhai Patel complainant) under
written memo.
This witness is absolutely independent witness and his
testimony is impeachable, fully reliable and also
corroborated with the testimony of PW-6, PW-7, PW-11, so
there is no reason to disbelieve on the testimony of this
witness.
37. Prosecution also examined Mr.Suresh Balram Nair

Inspector CBI as PW-8. He was one active member of
raiding party. He played an important role in the trap
proceedings. This witness also confirmed and proved all the
trap proceedings categorically by his oral evidence. This
witness found and recovered the tainted bribe amount from
the cabinet / compactor marked as 16 and 17.
PW-8 Mr. Suresh Nair testified that,
“Thereafter, we all together entered in that office, where
the complainant introduced Ashok Barot by indication.
Inspector Bedi gave his introduction himself and the
team members and asked to Ashok Barot, whether he
demanded and accepted bribe amount from the
complainant, and also asked where he kept the said
______________________________________________________________________________________
amount ? On this, accused became nervous and denied

to demand and acceptance of bribe.”
PW-8, further deposed that,

“Constable Vinod Singh caught hold of the hands of the
accused as per the inspector Bedi from his writs.
Inspector Bedi instructed me to search the tainted bribe
amount in the office….. Thereafter, complainant and
panch witnesses explained / narrated all the incident
before all the team members.”
Present witness deposed regarding the facts related to

meeting of complainant with the accused in the cabin,
delivery of tainted bribe amount of RS.5000/- after
negotiation and deduction of Rs.250/- which was kept with
the complainant.
This witness PW-8 further testified that,

“The complainant explained that after receiving the
tainted bribe amount, the accused was moved towards
filing cabinet /compactor. Hearing this fact, I myself
alongwith MR. Sunil Nair and Mr. Vikram Makwana and
witness No.2 went to the area and discreetly checked by
moving the cabinet. On moving the cabinet No.16 and
17, I had seen a bundle of GC Notes. I immediately
intimated the Trap-lying officer Mr. Bedi.”
PW-8 further deposed that,

“Thereafter, inspector Bedi instructed me to pickup the
GC notes. I counted the same, which was found 5 GC
______________________________________________________________________________________
Notes of 1000/- thereafter, it was also counted by Panch

witness. They had also confirmed the 5 GC notes of
rs.1000/- totalling Rs.5000/-. Thereafter, the serial
numbers of the notes were also tallied with the serial
numbers mentioned in the pre-trap Panchama which
was found the same. Thereafter, the said tainted bribe
amount was seized and sealed in an envelop, prior to
that a recovery memo was prepared.”
This witness also deposed all the facts regarding trap
proceedings after recovery of tainted bribe amount was
effected. The facts regarding the samples of wash of both
hands fingers of the accused was taken which was turned
into pink colour. The recovery of files by trap-lying officer
from Mr. Gajendra Prasad.
The finger wash sample was also examined by CFSL,
New Delhi. PW-14 Dipti Bhargav Senior Scientific Officer,
CFSL New Delhi proved the facts that samples were
properly sealed and intact at the time of receiving the same
by CFSL. The samples were examined by her and after
examination, she gave positive test for the presence of
phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. She also deposed
that due to passage of time, the colour of sample become
lighter. The report of examination is placed on record vide
Exhibit 75., which is referred during the examination of
chief of the said witness.
38. Another contention is raised by the learned counsel Mr.

R.Z.Shaikh on behalf of the accused that the complainant
has grievance with the accused as railway department had
deducted Rs.5 lakhs amount from the bill amount of 2009-
______________________________________________________________________________________
2010 tender work. He further argued that trap is planted to

pressurize the railway department so in future, railway
department clear his all payments without any objection
and employees do his work under pressure.
On careful perusal the relevant record, the bills as
well as the scrutiny amount of the tender work of year
2009-2010 was already passed and released by the railway
department prior to this incident after due process of law.
Three officers of works Account Department, DRM Office,
Vadodara, Mr. Gajendra Prasad Chief Office Superintendent,
Mr. Satyapraksh Mittal, Senior Divisional Engineer, DRM
Office, Vadodara and Mr. Pradip Ahirkar the then Senior
Divisional Manager, DRM Office, Vadodara were examined
in this case as a witness. During their testimony, no
witnesses stated anything regarding the complainant that
he was the man of such type that he had tried to pressurize
to any officer or employee of DRM office to take any undue
advantage from the railway department or he was having
grievance with any officials including the accused. So, such
defence has no force in my view.
39. At this stage, first of all let me reproduced the related

provisions of “Relevant fact”, and termed “Proved” and
“Disproved”.
Section 3 of the Evidence Act, defines,
“Relevant facts - “Means that any two facts to which it is
applied are so related to each other that according to the
common cause of events, one other by itself or in
connection with other facts proves or renders probable.
Past, present or future, existence or non existence of the
______________________________________________________________________________________
other. Relevant means admitted as connects to each other.
Section 3 of the Evidence Act also defines the term

“Proved and Disproved”.
The word “Proved” means anything which serves
other immediately or mediate to convince the mind of truth
or falsehood or fact or position. “Proved” does not mean
proved to rigid mathematical demonstrations, because that
is impossible. It must means such evidence would induce a
reasonable man to be a particular conclusion.
In the present case, all facts, circumstances, which
explained by the oral evidence of the witnesses, which are
consistent in nature and the Expert’s opinion strongly
suggest and proved that the accused has demanded bribe
from the complainant which was accepted by him and
subsequently, recovered from indirect conscious possession
of the accused. The complainant was not having any motive
to falsely implicate the accused in this offence. The facts of
this case are relevant to each other and also in sequence of
common events and are proved by the cogent evidences
with all other corroborative evidences.
40. On perusal of entire testimony of the witnesses, there is no

such grave or material contradiction, which has to be
considered by this Court, or which fainted the credibility of
prosecution case. Normal discrepancies and contradictions
in evidence are not required to be considered by the court
at the time of appreciation of evidence in my opinion.
In case of Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753, Hon’ble Apex Court has held
______________________________________________________________________________________
that,
“Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter
and shake the basic version of the witness cannot be
annexed with undue importance. Mere so, when all
important (probabilities factor) echos in favour of the
version narrated by the witness”.
In another case, State of U.P. Vs. N.K.Anotony, AIR,

1985 SC 42, Hon’ble Apex Court has led down the law that,
“Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the
core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking
sentences torn out the context here or there from the
evidence attaching importance to some technical error
committed by the Investigating Officer, not going to the
root of the matter would not ordinarily permit the
rejection of the evidence as a whole.”
In the present case also, some technical errors are done by

the Trap-lying officer during the trap proceedings, such as
he do not obtain the sample from the compactor on which
tainted bribe amount was lying and found. Trap-lying officer
also not take the possession of treated amount of Rs.250/-
from the complainant which he kept for his personal use
after bargaining with the accused. In my view, these
technical errors are not such type of errors which tampered
the gist of the case and also not such type of mistakes
which effected the merit of the case in any manner.
41. Learned Counsel Mr. R.Z.Shaikh on behalf of the accused

relied upon the various judgement regarding the bribery
______________________________________________________________________________________
cases, which are mentioned in the initial portion of this

judgement. The most of judgements are related with the
issue in which the legal principle is laid down that,
“Mere acceptance of amount or recovery of amount will
not sufficient to raise the presumption against the
accused, crime against the accused is to be established
beyond doubt and prosecution should stand on its own
footing and there should be substantive evidence of
demand and acceptance.”
Such legal principles are definitely binding to this court.

The burden of proof to prove the essential elements of the
offence in bribery cases is always lying upon the
prosecution. Herein this case, in view of the above
mentioned reasons, which are specifically and categorically
explained and expressed by this court, the prosecution have
duly proved all essential elements of the offence i.e.
demand, acceptance and obtainment of illegal gratification
by the accused from the complainant. On the basis of above
appreciated facts, court has rightly raised the legal
presumption that accused has accepted or obtained the
illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a
motive or reward for doing official act.
42. Under section 13(1)(d)i of the Prevention of corruption Act,

1988 obtaining any valuable thing or procuring advantage
by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant is itself
would amount to criminal misconduct on the same reason
obtaining a valuable thing or procuring advantage by
abusing his official position a public servant either for
______________________________________________________________________________________
himself or for any other person would amount to criminal

misconduct.
On evaluation and scrutinizing the whole facts of this
case, present accused has also committed an offence of
criminal misconduct defined under section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Thus, in view of above mentioned discussion, it can
certainly be said that the prosecution has duly proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed
offence under section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d)
of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988. Hence, I answer
point nos.2 and 3 in affirmative. For the aforesaid reasons, I
pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Accused namely Ashok Prabhulal Barot is hereby held
guilty for the offences punishable under section 7,
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
2. I am taking pause and proposed to give chance for
submissions to the accused as well as to the learned
P.P. on the point of quantum of sentence.
Pronounced in the open court in this 9th day of December,
2021.
[Chandrapal Singh K.Chauhan]

Special Judge, CBI Court No.7
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Bhadra, Ahmedabad,
U.I.Code No.GJ00513
______________________________________________________________________________________
FURTHER ORDER
1. On the point of quantum of sentence Ld. PP Mr. Shridhar
Dwivedi on behalf of prosecution argued that at the time of
commission of offence, accused was public servant and was
holding higher post in Indian Railways. Present accused
committed corruption in construction works of Railway
Department which is public sector. He further argued to set
the example in the society, accused may be awarded
maximum sentence.
2. Ld. Counsel Mr. R. Z. Shaikh on behalf of the accused

argued that present accused has long track record of
service, thirty three years and except this incident his track
record is neat and clean, no such type of incident has been
occurred during the tenure of his service. Ld. Counsel Mr.
R.Z.Shaikh further submitted that he has an eighty years
old mother who is completely bedridden. He is also having
one daughter and one son in his family and is the only
bread earning member in his family. Ld. Counsel Mr. Shaikh
further submitted that he has treated the accused as his
family member and made personal request to take lenient
view regarding the quantum of sentence.
3. After the hearing the arguments of rival parties on the

point of quantum of sentence, and on perusal of relevant
records and present situation of the society, corruption
nowadays has reached a monstrous dimension in India.
Corruption is an enemy of the nation. So tracking down a
corrupt public servant and punishing such person is
necessary mandate of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
______________________________________________________________________________________
without distinction of high and low rank because they are

the birds of the same feather.
4. In the case Subramaniyam Swami v. Manmohan Singh

and others (2012 (3) SCC 64) Hon’ble Apex Court has
held that
“today, corruption in our country not only posses a
grave danger to the concept of constitutional
governance, it also threatens the very foundation of
Indian Democracy and rule of law. The magnitude of
corruption in our public life is incompatible with a
concept of a socialist, secular, democratic, republic. It
cannot be disputed that where corruption begins, all
rights end… Corruption devalues human rights,
chokes the developments and undermines justice,
liberty, equity, fraternity which are the core values in
our preamble. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that
any anti corruption law has to be interpreted and
worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the
fight against corruption.”
5. In another case Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014

(9) SCC page no.1) Hon’ble Apex Court established the
rule that
“Office of public power cannot be the worship of
personal gain. The probity in public servants against
whom there are allegations of corruption of graft of
bribe taking or criminal misconduct under the Act
1988 can be made to be treated differently, because
one happens to be a junior officer and other a senior
______________________________________________________________________________________
decision maker”.
6. It is also the duty of the Court to restore the criminal

justice system and also restore the credibility of justice in
the society.
In case, Hajara Singh v. Rajkumar (2013 (9) SCC
516) Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
“This Court has observed that it is the duty of the
Court to consider all the relevant factors to impose a
proper sentence which reflects the criminal act of the
accused. The legislature has bestowed upon the
judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing
policy which must be exercised with utmost care and
caution. Punishment awarded should be directly
proportionate to the nature of the magnitude of the
offence. The benchmark of the proportionate
sentencing can assist the judges in arriving at a fair
and impartial verdict. This Court further observed
that cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the
sentence imposed on an offender should be reflect the
crime he has committed and it should be
proportionate to the gravity of offence. This Court has
repeatedly stressed the central role of the
proportionality in sentencing of the offenders in
numerous cases.”
7. In another case regarding the quantum of sentence the

Hon’ble three judges bench of Apex Court laid down the
principle in case Ahmed Hussain Vali Mohammed
Sayeed v. State of Gujarat (2009 (7) SCC 254)
______________________________________________________________________________________
“The object of awarding the proper sentencing should

be to protect the society, to deter the crime from
achieving the avowed object to law by imposing
sentence. It is expected that the Court would operate
sentencing system so as to impose such sentence
which reflects the conscious sentence of society and
the sentencing process has to be stern where it
should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing major
sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on
account of lapse of time in respect of such offence will
be result – wise counter productive in the long run
and against the interest of the society which needs to
be cared, for and strengthen by string of deterrence
inbuilt in the sentencing system.”
8. So, after considering all the facts and circumstances of this

case and the submissions made by rival parties and the
facts in which manner the accused has committed the
offence. After considering the mitigating circumstances of
the accused which are submitted before this Court and the
guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the
sentencing policy, I pass the following final order in the
interest of justice.
FINAL ORDER
1. The accused Ashok Prabhulal Barot is hereby convicted
under the provisions of Sections 235(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
______________________________________________________________________________________
years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

Only). Default of payment of fine, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. Further, the accused Ashok Prabhulal Barot is also

convicted under the provision of Section 235(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable
under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only). Default of
payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months.
3. The aforesaid sentences under the different Sections shall

run concurrently.
4. The surety bond of the accused be canceled.
5. The accused is taken into judicial custody.
6. The benefit of set-off be given to accused under the

provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
7. The copy of Judgment be provided to the accused free of

cost under the provision of Section 363 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
8. Muddamal Article No.1 – one black coloured mobile phone

______________________________________________________________________________________
of Samsung Duos make alongwith micro SD Card of 4GB

hightech make is hereby returned back to the complainant
after completion of appeal period.
9. Muddamal Article No.2 – 4GB micro SD Card of Toshiba

make and muddamal Article No.6 – 8GB micro SD card of
Sandisk make are hereby ordered to be returned back to
HOB, CBI, Gandhinagar after completion of appeal period.
10. Muddamal Article No.5 – tainted GC notes of Rs.5000/- in

the denomination of Rs.1000/- each are hereby ordered to
be returned back to HOB, CBI, Gandhinagar. He is hereby
directed to deposit the same to Reserve Bank of India after
completion of appeal period. HOB, CBI, Gandhinagar is
also hereby ordered to pay the Rs.5000/- to the
Complainant if till today said amount is not returned back
to Complainant as he submitted the GC notes for the
purpose of using the same in trap proceeding.
11. Muddamal Article No.3 & 4 – sealed bottles are hereby

ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
Pronounced in the open court in this 9th day of December,

2021.
[Chandrapal Singh K.Chauhan]

Special Judge, CBI Court No.7
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Bhadra, Ahmedabad,
U.I.Code No.GJ00513

In The Court of Special Judge, Cbi Court No.7 at Bhadra, Ahmedabad Cbi Special Case No.21 of 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Court of Special Judge, Cbi Court No.7 at Bhadra, Ahmedabad Cbi Special Case No.21 of 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CBI SP.CASE NO.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI COURT NO.7

CBI SPECIAL CASE NO.21 OF 2015

Complainant:- Central Bureau of Investigation,

Appearances:- Shri Shridhar Dwivedi, learned PP for the CBI

1. The short facts as mentioned in the charge-sheet are that

Savjibhai Patel, proprietor of M/s.Prabhat Agencies,

Infocity, Gandhinagar, to nab the accused red-handed while

accused), Shri Rajesh S. Fanse (office colleague of accused)

2. It is further the case of the prosecution that the

room of Ashok Barot i.e Works Accounts Section.

3. On receipt of summons, the accused has appeared. My

Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charges

4. In support of this case, the prosecution has produced the

Gandhinagar along with acknowledgement

the prosecution closed the evidence by submitting

6. No documentary and oral evidence were produced by the

7. Thereafter, further statement of the accused has been

The accused categorically denied to have either any

8. The prosecution has submitted written arguments at

P.C.Act are also duly proved by the prosecution.

bribe of Rs.5,250/- from Vithalbhai S. Patel.

Barot, there were two or three persons seated and Ashok

10. It is further submitted that the prosecution also examined

dated 13.05.2015 Exh.20. It is further submitted that the

He further deposed that thereafter, recovery memo was

members along with both the panch witnesses. He further

by illegal means from the complainant while holding office

11. Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused Mr.R.Z.Shaikh

established by the complainant, he was doing contract work

pre-trap Panchnama. So, once it was decided and produced

Panch witness is perused, it is mentioned the word is

was obtained on the seizure memo/recovery memo.

It is further submitted that the arrest memo was

examined by the I.O.

Nair has in his deposition stated that, “Thereafter we

He also does not have any knowledge regarding such

13. It is further submitted that P.W.4 Shri Satya Prakash Mittal

the panch was constantly outside the gate of the accounts

Points for determination

(2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable

section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

(3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable

(4) What order?

15. My findings on the above points are as under:

Discussion and Reasons

7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of

17. PW-9 Mr. Pradip Ahirkar testified that,

PW-9 Mr. Pradip Ahirkar further deposed that,

has his signature on each page and also has his

Thus, it can certainly be said that the sanction order

POINT NO.2 AND 3:

“Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes

Learned Defense Counsel also relied upon the judgement in

It is true that is is settled principle of law that demand

As per prosecution case, during the trap proceedings,

Thereafter, this mobile handset was seized and sealed

During the trial at the time of recording the deposition

“Voice Exhibit of the speaker marked as Exhibit SP-1

marked as Exhibit – CS-3 are similar in respect of

It is further opined that ,

This witness also deposed that all parcels Mark – A,

19. On perusal of contents of transcription vide Exhibit – 19,