# Vijay Kumar Verma v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 552
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1334 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-kumar-verma-v-state-of-u-p-52699
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Safety Department was charged under section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
case originated from a complaint that the
appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 12,000/-
from the complainant to issue a meat licence.
The key issue for consideration whether the
prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt
the guilt of the appellant.
Headnotes
Criminal law- Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988-Section 7- Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section

374(2)-The
court
emphasized the well-settled legal position
as laid down by the Constitutional Bench
of the Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj
Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT ,Delhi) that
proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant is a sine
qua non(an absolutely essential condition)
for constituting an offence under section 7
of the Act, 1988-The failure of the
prosecution to prove the initial demand of
illegal gratification, coupled with material
contradictions in the evidence regarding
the trap proceedings , is fatal to the
prosecution's case.

Held
The court scrutinized the evidence and found
the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the
initial demand of the bribe for issuing a meat
license. A key witness contradicted other
witnesses regarding the place where the posttrap formalities were conducted, and the
complainant's own testimony on whether he had
even submitted a license application was
inconsistent-Hence, the conviction recorded by
the trial court could not be sustained. The
appellant was therefore acquitted.(Para 45 to
66) (E-6)

List of Acts
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973.

List of Keywords
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Illegal
gratification, demand and acceptance, Sine qua
non,
Trap
case
,
conviction,
acquittal,
circumstantial
evidence,
Contradictions
in
evidence, Neeraj Dutta Vs. St.(Govt. of NCT
Delhi), Public servant, Food Safety Department.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISIDCTION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.-1334of 2025
Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
10 All. Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
553
Advs. for Appellant(s):-
 Amit Kumar Srivastava
Adv. for Respondent:-
G.A.

Case law cited:
Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)
(2023) 4 SCC 731.

## Text

552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No. 2, Ghazipur, in Sessions Trial No. 09
of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Singh alias
Ram Singha alias Ram Singhwa &
Another) is set aside. The appellants are
acquitted from the charges of offence by
granting them benefit of doubt.

37. Since the appellants namely Ram
Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram
Singhwa and Surendra Yadav have already
been released on bail, as such, their sureties
and bail bonds shall stand discharged
subject to compliance of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C.

38. The trial Court record along with
the copy of this judgment and order be
transmitted
to
the
court
concerned,
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 552
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: 16.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1334 of 2025

Vijay Kumar Verma ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Amit Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
The appellant, a designated officer in the Food
Safety Department was charged under section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
case originated from a complaint that the
appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 12,000/-
from the complainant to issue a meat licence.
The key issue for consideration whether the
prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt
the guilt of the appellant.
Headnotes
Criminal law- Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988-Section 7- Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section

374(2)-The
court
emphasized the well-settled legal position
as laid down by the Constitutional Bench
of the Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj
Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT ,Delhi) that
proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant is a sine
qua non(an absolutely essential condition)
for constituting an offence under section 7
of the Act, 1988-The failure of the
prosecution to prove the initial demand of
illegal gratification, coupled with material
contradictions in the evidence regarding
the trap proceedings , is fatal to the
prosecution's case.

Held
The court scrutinized the evidence and found
the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the
initial demand of the bribe for issuing a meat
license. A key witness contradicted other
witnesses regarding the place where the posttrap formalities were conducted, and the
complainant's own testimony on whether he had
even submitted a license application was
inconsistent-Hence, the conviction recorded by
the trial court could not be sustained. The
appellant was therefore acquitted.(Para 45 to
66) (E-6)

List of Acts
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973.

List of Keywords
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Illegal
gratification, demand and acceptance, Sine qua
non,
Trap
case
,
conviction,
acquittal,
circumstantial
evidence,
Contradictions
in
evidence, Neeraj Dutta Vs. St.(Govt. of NCT
Delhi), Public servant, Food Safety Department.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISIDCTION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.-1334of 2025
Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
10 All. Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
553
Advs. for Appellant(s):-
 Amit Kumar Srivastava
Adv. for Respondent:-
G.A.

Case law cited:
Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)
(2023) 4 SCC 731.

(Delivered by Hon'ble SAmeer Jain, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by
the appellant-Vijay Kumar Verma against
the judgement and order dated 22.1.2025
passed by Sri Kamleshwar Pandey, Special
Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Court
No. 2, Bareilly passed in Special Case No.
432 of 2023 State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Kumar
Verma relates to case crime No. 5 of 2022
under section 7 Prevention of Corruption
Act, PS. Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Act)
District Bareilly U.P. Vigilance by which
learned trial court convicted the appellant
under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption
Act and awarded him four years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and
in default of fine one month additional
imprisonment.

Introductory facts:-

3. FIR of the present case was lodged
on 15.12.2022 at 18:40 hours against the
appellant under section 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act (hereafter, referred in short
as 'the Act'). According to the FIR,
appellant was Designated Officer, in food
safety
department.
On
8.12.2022
complainant Kayum (PW-5) made a
complaint against him with the allegation
that he moved an application for meat
licence and to issue licence, appellant made
demand of Rs. 12,000/- as bribe.

4. On the above complaint on
9.12.2022 pre trap enquiry was conducted
and thereafter on 15.12.2022 in the
presence of two independent witnesses
Vinod Kumar (PW-3) and Varun Singh
(PW-4) appellant was apprehended red
handed by the trap team while he was
receiving bribe from the complainant (PW5) and bribe money was also recovered
from his possession.

5. After registration of the FIR
investigation was conducted and after
investigation, charge sheet has been filed
against appellant and after submission of
the charge sheet court concerned took the
cognizance and on 31.3.2023 charges were
framed against the appellant under section
7 of the Act. Appellant did not accept the
charges and claimed trial.

6. During trial, prosecution produced
total 8 witnesses. Inspector Bhupesh
Kumar Rai has been examined as PW-1,
Inspector Pan Singh has been examined as
PW-2,
independent
witnesses,
Vinod
Kumar and Varun Singh have been
examined as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively,
complainant Kayum has been examined as
PW-5, Sub Inspector Kailash Chandra
Pandey has been examined as PW-6,
Constable Narendra Pal has been examined
as PW-7 and Inspector Arvind Singh was
examined as PW-8.

7. After the prosecution evidence
statement of appellant was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. in which also he denied
from the charges and thereafter witness
Rakesh Chandra has been examined as
DW-1.
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. On 22.1.2025 trial court convicted
the appellant in the instant matter for
offence u/s 7of the Act and awarded him 4
years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- and in default of fine one
month additional imprisonment.

9. Hence the instant appeal.

Argument advanced on behalf of the
appellant:-

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted
that
the
entire
allegations
levelled against the appellant are totally
false and during trial prosecution failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.

11. He further submitted that appellant
neither made any demand of bribe nor he
ever accepted the bribe and even bribe
money in fact has not been recovered from
his possession and these facts are reflected
from the prosecution evidence.

12. He next submitted that from the
statement of the complainant Kayum (PW5) it reflects however he stated that
appellant made demand of bribe of Rs.
12,000/- from him to issue meat licence to
him and in this regard he made complaint
against the appellant on 8.12.2022 but from
his statement it could not be reflected that
when appellant made demand of bribe and
therefore, the allegation with regard to
demand of bribe made against the appellant
is vague and prosecution could not prove
this fact during trial.

13. He further submitted that from the
cross-examination of complaint i.e. PW-5 it
reflects, he did not even file any application
for licence and therefore, even the genesis
of the crime i.e., reason for bribe also could
not be proved by the prosecution. He next
argued, if there was not even any
application for licence then there was
absolutely neither any occasion for the
appellant to make demand of bribe from the
complainant nor there was any occasion for
the complainant i.e. PW-5 to give bribe to
him.

14. He next submitted that from the
statements of the complainant (PW-5),
Inspector-Bhupesh
Kumar-PW1
and
independent witness, Varun Singh (PW-4)
it reflect, after the alleged trap which was
conducted in the office of the appellant
entire post trap proceedings including
preparation of the recovery memo have
been conducted at spot but from the crossexamination of independent witness Vinod
Kumar, (PW-3) it reflects trap team arrived
at the office of the appellant on 15.12.2022
at 12 hours in the noon and after five to ten
minutes trap team alongwith him and
appellant returned back and thereafter they
arrived at Bareilly and on the way entire
formalities of post trap were completed and
thereafter appellant was taken to vigilance
police station and at vigilance police station
writing work was done and his signature
was
taken.
He
next submitted that
statement of independent witness, Vinod
Kumar (PW-3) casts serious doubt on the
prosecution case with regard to the trap
proceedings and in the light of the
statement of PW 3 statements of other
prosecution witnesses become doubtful.

15. He next submitted that from the
statement of Constable Narendra Pal (PW7) it reflects photography and videography
of the alleged trap proceeding has not been
conducted and this fact also casts serious
doubt on the alleged trap.

16. He further submitted that Rakesh
Chandra has been examined as DW-1 who
10 All. Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
555
was
clerk
of
Advocate-Azram
and
according to him on 15.12.2022 he went to
the office of appellant for a Challan with
regard to fine but when he arrived at his
office then he was stopped and thereafter
two persons arrived at the office of the
appellant and thereafter they have taken
him and subsequently next date he came to
know that appellant has been arrested in the
present matter. He further submitted that
from the statement of DW-I it reflects
according to him no paper work was done
at the office of the appellant and thus, the
statement of defence witness (DW-I) also
supports the testimony of independent
witness Vinod Kumar (PW 3) and it
reflects, at spot where trap was made
neither hands of appellant were washed nor
even recovery memo was prepared

17. He further submits, trial court
without any cogent reason disbelieved the
testimony of defence witness (DW 1) and
also failed to appreciate the prosecution
evidence in the light of the statement of
independent witness Vinod Kumar (PW 3).

18. He further submitted that applicant
has been convicted for offence under
section 7 of the Act and to constitute an
offence under Section 7 of the Act demand
of bribe and its acceptance both are
necessary and considering the prosecution
evidence produced during trial it reflects
prosecution failed to prove both these
essential ingredients beyond reasonable
doubt and thus, conviction of the appellant
is illegal.

19. He placed reliance on the
judgement of the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court passed in the case of Neeraj
Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)
2023 4 SCC 731.

20. He next submitted that therefore,
impugned judgement and order dated
22.1.2025 passed by the trial court is illegal
and liable to set aside and appellant is
liable to be acquitted.

Submission advanced on behalf of
State:

21. Per contra, learned AGA submitted
that appellant was public servant and he
was designated office in Food and Safety
Department and he made demand of bribe
of Rs. 12,000/- from the complainant to
issue license to him for meat and thereafter
he was apprehended red handed by the trap
team before two independent witnesses and
prosecution during trial successfully proved
its case beyond reasonable doubt and
except minor contradictions there is no
illegality in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and therefore, while convicting
the appellant in the present matter trial
court did not commit any illegality.

22. He further submitted that however
from the complaint dated 8.12.2022 moved
by the complainant i.e. PW-5 it could not
be reflected that when appellant made
demand of bribe from him but during cross
examination he stated that in December,
2022 he made demand of bribe and
therefore it cannot be said that prosecution
did not even prove that when appellant
made demand of bribe.

23. He further submitted that however
one independent witness Vinod Kumar
(PW-3) in his statement stated that entire
written formalities with regard to trap
proceedings have been made in Vigilance
Police Station and on the way the hands of
the appellant were washed but merely on
this ground entire prosecution case cannot
be
discarded
after
disbelieving
the
statements of other prosecution witnesses
including
the
statement
of
another
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
independent witness Varun Singh (PW-4)
as they in their statements categorically
stated that entire proceedings after the trap
have been conducted at spot where trap was
made.

24. He next submitted that for offence
under Section 7 of the Act however it is
necessary for the prosecution to prove that
accused not only made demand of bribe but
he also accepted the bribe but these two
essential ingredients have been duly proved
by the prosecution during trial beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, it cannot be
said that there is any illegality in the
impugned judgment and order dated
21.01.2025 passed by the trial court.

25. He next submitted that therefore
instant appeal filed by the appellant is
devoid of merits and is liable to be
dismissed.

Analysis & Conclusion:-

26. I have heard the rival contentions
raised by the counsel of respective parties
and perused the record of the case. Before
analysing the prosecution evidence it is
necessary to discuss the evidence briefly
adduced during trial.

Prosecution Evidence:

27. Prosecution examined Inspector
Bhupesh Kumar Rai as PW-1. He stated
that on 08.12.2022 complainant Kayyum
(PW-5) made a complaint against appellant
that he moved an application for license of
meat and appellant who was designated
officer in the Food and Safety Department
made demand of bribe of Rs. 12,000/- from
him to issue license to him and on the
complaint moved by complainant (PW-5)
on
09.11.2022
pre-trap
report
was
submitted and thereafter trap team was
constituted and on 15.12.2022 under his
supervision at 7.30AM in the morning trap
team arrived at Shahjahanpur and thereafter
two independent witnesses Varun Singh
(PW-4) and Vinod Kumar (PW-3) were
taken who were nominated by District
Magistrate, Shahjahanur and thereafter pretrap proceedings were conducted before
them.

28. PW-1 further stated that thereafter
trap team along with two independent
witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) arrived at
office
of
the
appellant
and
when
complainant Kyyum (PW-5) arrived in the
office of appellant then he asked him about
Rs. 12,000/- and thereafter he received
bribe money and after that he was arrested
red handed at 12.45 in the afternoon and
from his possession Rs. 12,000/- bribe
money was recovered. As per PW-1 after
the arrest of the appellant his hands were
washed which turned pink and thereafter
recovery memo was prepared at spot.

29. In his cross examination PW 1
stated that he did not know when
complainant (PW -5) moved application for
meat license. He further stated, his
application for licence of meat was
pending.

30. Inspector Pan Singh was produced
by the prosecution as PW-2 and in his
statement he stated that on 08.12.2022
complainant (PW-5) moved a complaint
against appellant that for issue meat licence
he made demand of bribe of Rs. 12,000/-
and on 9.12.2022 he (PW 2) conducted pretrap inquiry. He further stated that
statement of complainant (PW 5) was
recorded by S.I. Rishipal before him on
12.12.2022. In his cross-examination this
witness stated, complainant (PW 5) moved
10 All. Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
557
the application for licence of meat which
was pending before appellant. He further
stated that complainant (PW 5) moved the
application, on-line.

31. Independent witness Vinod Kumar
has been examined as PW-3. He stated that
on 15.12.2022 he was nominated as
independent witness and in his presence
appellant was apprehended red handed on
15.12.2022 between 12.30 to 01.00, in the
afternoon. He also stated that when after
arrest hands of appellant and complaint
(PW-5) were washed then they turned pink.
According to him recovery memo was
prepared at spot.

32. In the cross examination PW-3
stated that they arrived at the office of
appellant at 12.00 hours in the afternoon
and within 5-10 minutes appellant was
taken by the trap team at Bareilly and on
the way the written formalities regarding
trap proceedings were completed and at
Bareilly at Vigilance Police Station trap
team completed the remaining written
formalities and thereafter he put his
signature. This witness further stated that
on the way the hands were washed.

33. Varun Singh, another independent
witness has been examined as PW-4. He
stated that on 15.12.2022 he was nominated
as independent witness for trap proceedings
and thereafter in his presence appellant was
arrested by the trap team and entire
proceedings of trap have been conducted at
spot and recovery memo was also prepared
at spot where trap was made.

34. Complainant Kayyum has been
examined as PW-5. He stated that he
moved application for licence of meat and
to issue the license appellant made demand
of Rs. 12,000/- from him. He further stated
that out of Rs. 12,000/- Rs. 2,000/- were
demanded by the appellant for moving
online application. As per PW-5 on
08.12.2022 he moved complaint against the
appellant. He further stated, on 12.12.2022
his statement was recorded.

35.
He
further
stated
that
on
15.12.2022 after taking bribe money of Rs.
12,000/- he arrived at the gate of
Collectorate Shahjahanpur where he was
introduced with trap team and independent
witnesses and after pre trap proceedings he
went along with trap team at the office of
appellant and when appellant made demand
of bribe of Rs. 12,000/- then he gave him
and thereafter trap team apprehended the
appellant red handed.

36. He further stated that at the spot
entire
proceedings
were
conducted
including washing the hands of the
appellant.
In
the
cross
examination
complainant i.e. PW-5 stated that he did not
himself apply online for meat license and
he only met with Food Safety Officer of his
region. He further stated that neither he
deposited any fee for license nor he moved
any application for license. In the cross
examination this witness further stated that
designated officer i.e. appellant called him
in his office.

37. He further stated that in December,
2022 appellant made demand of money but
could not remember the date and when he
could not arrange the money then on
08.12.2022 he made complaint against him.

38. From the cross examination of
PW-5 i.e. complainant it also reflects,
according to him after registration of the
case neither any vigilance officer met him
nor made any inquiry from him and after
registration of case when court summoned
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
him then he came in the court for his
statement.

39. Sub Inspector Kailash Chandra
Pandey has been examined as PW-6.
According to him on 15.12.2022 he was
posted as Sub Inspector in Vigilance
Depatment Bareilly Sector Bareilly and on
15.12.2022 Inspector Bhupesh Rai (PW-1)
along with his team and appellant and Rs.
12,000/-
(bribe
money)
arrived
and
thereafter on 15.12.2022 at 18.40 hours the
FIR of the present case was lodged.

40. Head Constable Narendra Pal has
been examined as PW-7. According to him,
on 15.12.2022 at about 7.30 AM in the
morning he along with other team members
arrived
at
the
gate
of
Collectorate
Shahjahanpur
where
he
met
with
complainant Kayyum (PW-5) and two
independent witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4)
and thereafter firstly pre trap proceeding
was conducted and thereafter they arrived
at office of appellant and when appellant
received bribe money from the complainant
(PW-5) then he arrested him at 12.45 in the
afternoon.

41. He further stated, after arrest of the
appellant his hands were washed at spot
and thereafter at spot recovery memo was
prepared. In the cross examination this
witness stated that in entire proceedings
approximately two hours were consumed
and thereafter appellant had taken to the
police station Vigilance Bareilly. He
however further stated that videography
and photography of the trap proceeding
have not been conducted.

42. Inspector Arvind Singh has been
examined as PW-8. He is the investigating
officer of the case and according to him on
15.12.2022 he was posted as Inspector in
U.P. Vigilance Department Bareilly Sector.
He
recorded
the
statements
of
the
complainant (PW-5) and other witnesses
including independent witness (PW 3 and
PW 4) during investigation and after
investigation he submitted the charge-sheet.
PW-8 proved the sanction granted against
appellant. In the cross-examination this
witness
stated
that
application
of
complainant (PW 5) for licence of meat
was pending before appellant.

Statement of appellant recorded u/s
313 Cr.P.C. and Defence evidence:-

43.
After
prosecution
evidence,
statement of the appellant was recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied from
the charges and thereafter Rakesh Chandra
has been examined as defence witness
(DW-1) and according to DW-1 he was
advocate Clerk and on 15.12.2022 he had
gone to the office of appellant with regard
to a Challan and when he arrived at his
office then he was told to wait for two
minutes and thereafter two persons came
and they have taken the appellant from the
office and thereafter next day he came to
know that appellant has been arrested by
the Vigilance Team for receiving bribe.
This witness further stated that when two
persons were taking the appellant from his
office then at that time neither any
proceedings were made in writing nor
hands of anyone were washed. In the cross
examination he stated that he knew the
appellant since the year 2020 and on his
instructions he came to give the evidence.
In the cross examination he did not disclose
the name of the person for whom purpose
he came at the office of appellant.

Discussion:-

44. Appellant was the public servant
and he faced trial for offence punishable
10 All. Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
559
under section 7 of the Act and trial court on
22.1.2025 convicted him for offence under
section 7 of the Act, therefore, before
analysing the evidence produced before
trial court it will be apt to go through the
section 7 of the Act which runs as:-

"7. Offence relating to public
servant being bribed.-

Any public servant who,--

(a) obtains or accepts or attempts
to obtain from any person, an undue
advantage, with the intention to perform or
cause
performance
of
public
duty
improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or
cause forbearance to perform such duty
either by himself or by another public
servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts
to obtain, an undue advantage from any
person as a reward for the improper or
dishonest performance of a public duty or
for forbearing to perform such duty either
by himself or another public servant; or

(c) performs or induces another
public servant to perform improperly or
dishonestly a public duty or to forbear
performance of such duty in anticipation of
or in consequence of accepting an undue
advantage from any person,

shall
be
punishable
with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than three years but which may extend
to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.

Explanation 1.--For the purpose
of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or
the
attempting
to
obtain
an
undue
advantage shall itself constitute an offence
even if the performance of a public duty by
public servant, is not or has not been
improper.

Illustration.--A public servant, 'S'
asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of
five thousand rupees to process his routine
ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty
of an offence under this section.

Explanation 2.--For the purpose
of this section,--

(i) the expressions "obtains" or
"accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall
cover cases where a person being a public
servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to
obtain, any undue advantage for himself or
for another person, by abusing his position
as a public servant or by using his personal
influence over another public servant; or
by any other corrupt or illegal means;

(ii) it shall be immaterial whether
such person being a public servant obtains
or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue
advantage directly or through a third
party."

45. From perusal of the provisions of
section 7 of the Act it is apparent that
demand of bribe as well as its acceptance
by the public servant both are essential
ingredients for constituting an offence
under section 7 of the Act.

46. The Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta
(supra) also held that "proof of demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification by a
public servant as a fact in issue by the
prosecution is a sine qua non in order to
establish the guilty of the accused public
servant under section 7 and 13(i) (d)(i)(ii)
of the Act".

47. Therefore, it is necessary to
ascertain from the evidence adduced by the
prosecution before the trial court whether
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that appellant who was public
servant made demand of bribe and accepted
the bribe.

48. Complainant-Kayum has been
examined by the prosecution as PW-5 and
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from his examination-in-chief it reflects,
appellant was Designated Officer in the
Food and Safety Department and PW-5
moved an application for licence of meat
and appellant made demand of bribe of Rs.
12,000/- from him for issuance of license
but from his cross-examination it reflects
he did not even move any application for
license of meat. As per his crossexamination, appellant made demand of Rs.
12,000/- from him out of which Rs.
10,000/- he demanded as bribe and Rs.
2,000/- were for his online application,
therefore, there is material contradiction in
the examination-in-chief and in crossexamination of complainant Kayum (PW 5)
with regard to his application for license of
meat.

49. Further, according to witnesses
Inspector Bhupesh Kumar Rai (PW 1) the
officer who led the trap proceeding,
Inspector Pan Singh (PW 2) who conducted
pre trap enquiry and Inspector Arvind
Singh (PW 8), the Investigating Officer,
complainant Kayyum PW 5, moved the
application for licence of meat which was
pending.

50. Therefore, from the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses PW 1, PW 2 and PW
8 it reflect application of complainant
Kayum (PW 5) for licence of meat was
pending. Further, however, PW 5 in his
examination in chief stated that he moved
the application but in cross-examination he
stated, appellant made demand of total Rs.
12,000/- out of which Rs. 2000/- were for
online application therefore, from his crossexamination it reflects he did not even
move any such application. It is pertinent to
mention that during trial no application
moved by complainant (PW 5) was
produced by the prosecution. These facts
cast serious doubt on the prosecution case
regarding demand of bribe by the appellant
for licence of meat.

51. The Apex Court in case of Neeraj
Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of
Delhi) in criminal Appeal No. 1669 of
2009 decided on 17.3.2023 declared the
prosecution
case
doubtful
regarding
demand of bribe on the ground that demand
of bribe was being made for installation of
electricity meter and though complainant of
said case moved application for installation
but during trial no such application was
produced. The Apex Court observed, " in
absence
of
proof
of
making
such
application the prosecution's case regarding
demand of bribe for installation new
electricity meter becomes doubtful" .

52. Further, from the testimony of
PW-5 i.e. complainant Kayum it reflects,
he moved complaint against appellant on
8.12.2022 that he is making demand of
bribe from him to issue licence of meat but
in the application dated 8.12.2022 he did
not disclose when such demand was made
by the appellant. He did not even disclose
this fact either in his examination in chief
or in his cross examination, however, in his
cross-examination he stated that applicant
made demand of bribe in December, 2022
but also stated that he could not recollect
the date. This fact again casts serious doubt
on the prosecution's case regarding demand
of bribe made by appellant.

53. Further, however, the Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
Neeraj Dutta (supra) also held that "even
if bribe giver made an offer of bribe to
public servant and public servant accepted
the offer and received bribe money then
also offence under section 7 of the Act is
made out against him" but in case at hand,
from
perusal
of
the
statements
of
10 All. Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
561
prosecution witnesses it could not be
proved beyond reasonable doubt that either
complainant (PW 5) made an offer of bribe
or appellant made demand of bribe to him.

54. Further, mere acceptance of money
by public servant does not constitute an
offence u/s 7 of the Act and for offence u/s
7 of the Act it is necessary to prove that the
said accepted money by a public servant
was the bribe money.

55. According to the complainant (PW
5) appellant asked for money and thereafter
accepted the money from him but from his
statement it could not be reflected that
appellant received the money as bribe as
from his entire statement it could not be
reflected that either he offered for bribe or
appellant accepted the money as bribe.

56. Further, however, prosecution also
produced two shadow witnesses PW-3 and
PW-4 and as per the statement of PW 3
Vinod Kumar, complainant Kyum (PW 5)
entered in the office of the appellant and
after the demand made by appellant he
gave bribe money to him but even from his
statement it could not be reflected that the
alleged money which was given by the
complainant PW-5 to appellant was the
bribe money as it could not be reflected
from his statement that either complainant
(PW 5) offered for bribe or appellant
received the money as bribe. Even from the
statement of PW-4 Varun Singh also it
could only be reflected that on demand of
appellant the complainant (PW 5) gave
money to him but it could also not be
reflected from his statement that the said
money was bribe money.

57. Further, however, PW-1 the
informant S.I. Bhupesh Kumar Rai in his
statement stated that appellant was in his
office and when complainant arrived in his
office then appellant asked him whether he
brought Rs. 12,000/- or not and thereafter
complainant told him that he brought the
money which was demanded by appellant
as bribe and after the demand made by
appellant he handed over Rs.12,000/- to
appellant but the statement of PW-1 who
was police personnel with regard to the
demand of bribe made by appellant does
not appear to be convincing and in this
regard no reliance can be placed on his
statement as from his statement it reflects,
he heard the conversation made between
appellant and the complainant Kayum (PW
5) from outside the door which appears to
be improbable.

58. Therefore, from the discussion
made above it is apparent that prosecution
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that appellant made demand of bribe from
the complainant Kayum (PW 5) and
received the bribe from him.

59. Further, according to prosecution
on 8.12.2022 complainant Kayum (PW-5)
moved application against appellant that he
is making demand of bribe from him and
thereafter pre trap inquiry was conducted
by S.I. Pan Singh (PW 2) and on 9.12.2022
i.e., next day S.I. Pan Singh (PW-2)
submitted his pre trap report and according
to him appellant was a dishonest public
servant and thereafter permission of trap
was granted but from the statement of PW2 SI Pan Singh it reflects he first time
recorded the statement of complainant (PW
5) on 9.12.2022 through S.I. Rishipal i.e.
after submission of the pre-trap report. This
fact cast serious doubt on pre trap inquiry
conducted by PW 2. IN case of trap pre
trap inquiry is very relevant and important
and if pre-trap inquiry becomes doubtful
then entire post trap proceedings come
under cloud.
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

60. Further, however, there is a
presumption clause in section 20 of the Act
which runs as follows:-

20. Presumption where public
servant accepts any undue advantage.-

Where, in any trial of an offence
punishable under section 7 or under
section 11, it is proved that a public servant
accused of an offence has accepted or
obtained or attempted to obtain for himself,
or for any other person, any undue
advantage from any person, it shall be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved,
that he accepted or obtained or attempted
to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive
or reward under section 7 for performing
or to cause performance of a public duty
improperly or dishonestly either by himself
or by another public servant or, as the case
may be, any undue advantage without
consideration or for a consideration which
he knows to be inadequate under section
11.

61. Therefore, from the provision of
Section 20 of the Act it reflects that if
prosecution has successfully proved that an
accused accepted the bribe then it shall be
presumed that the public servant accepted
the same as a motive or reward but in the
present matter, as already held, prosecution
could not prove that appellant accepted the
money as bribe money, therefore, no
presumption can be drawn against the
appellant with the aid of section 20 of the
Act.

62. Further, law is settled that merely
on the basis of section 20 of the Act a
public servant cannot be convicted unless
and until basic ingredients i.e. demand of
bribe and its acceptance have been proved
by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt.
[See:
Constitution
Bench
Judgement of the Apex Court in the case
of Neeraj Dutta (supra)].

63. In case at hand, as already
observed prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that appellant
made demand of bribe, therefore, from this
aspect too, no presumption can be drawn
against the appellant under section 20 of
the Act.

64. Therefore, from the discussion
made above, in view of this Court
prosecution failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and it appears, trial court
while convicting the appellant could not
properly appreciate the evidence on record
and wrongly convicted the appellant in the
present case. The conviction recorded by
trial court cannot be sustained.

65. Therefore, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case discussed
above, the judgement and order of
conviction as well as sentence awarded by
the trial court vide impugned order dated
22.1.2025 passed in Special Case No. 432
of 2023, State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Kumar
Verma, under section 7 Prevention of
Corruption Act are, hereby, set aside. The
appellant is acquitted from all the charges
for which he has been tried. The appellant
(Vijay Kumar Verma) is reported to be in
Jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not
wanted in any other criminal case subject to
the compliance of provisions of Section
437-A Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 481
BNSS) to the satisfaction of the trial court.

66. The instant appeal filed by
appellant stands allowed.

67. Let a copy of this order/judgement
and the original record of the trial court be
transmitted to the trial court concerned
10 All. Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
563
forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.

68. The office is further directed to
enter the judgement in compliance register
maintained for the purpose of the Court.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 563
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: 30.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 6805 of 2019

Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Abhishek Mayank, Kamlesh Ratan Yadav,
Nanhe Lal Tripathi, Shashikala Mani
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
The matter pertains to the appellants who
appealed their conviction for the murder of one
Hari Kishan who was found with his neck slit
while sleeping outside his house. the central
issue for consideration before the court was
whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the
appellants beyond all reasonable doubt, in the
light of contradictions between the initial First
Information
Report
and
the
subsequent
eyewitness accounts, unproven motive and
doubtful nature of the recovery of the crime
weapon.

Headnotes
A.
Criminal
law-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections
302/34-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
374(2)-
Challenge to- conviction-The court found
fatal contradiction where the FIR lodged
by PW-1(wife of the deceased), merely
stated she woke up to find her husband
dead and nominated the accused based on
prior threats/suspicion-recovery of bloodstained axe on the disclosure statement
was discredited-the recovery site was an
open place accessible to all and the
recovery witness (PW-3) stated that no
recovery was made in his presence, but
the police merely got the memo signedDuring trial, PW-1 and brother (PW-2)
changed their version, claiming they had
directly witnessed the appellants assault
the deceased with an axe due to an
animosity related to illicit relations-The
court found the entire story was an
afterthought-the High Court set aside the
trial court's judgment and acquitted both
appellants-Allowed.
B.

Held
The court rejected the testimony of PW-1 and
PW-2 who claimed to have witnessed the
murder because the FIR, lodged by PW-1
herself, made no mention of them being
eyewitnesses, suggesting the direct evidence
was
a
concocted
afterthought
and
the
independent
recovery
witness
denies
the
recovery was made in his presence, thereby
challenging the genuineness and procedure
followed by the investigating officer. If the
material evidence fails to inspire confidence or is
tainted by improbabilities and contradictions,
the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt
and must be acquitted.The court held that the
prosecution failed to prove the chain of
circumstances and the guilt of the appellants
beyond
reasonable
doubt-The
appeal
allowed.(Para 45 to 73) (E-6)

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860, Criminal Procedure
Code,1973, Indian Evidence Act,1872

List of Keywords
Murder,
Common
Intention,
Eyewitness/testimony, First Information Report,
Contradiction/Embellishment, Suspicion, Crossexamination, motive, Recovery of weapon,
Disclosure of statement, benefit of doubt ,
conviction, acquittal.