News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 154 | 2026:CGHC:8242
February 16, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside the acquittal of a police inspector in a corruption case dating back to 2011, holding that the trial court ignored crucial evidence and misapplied settled legal principles. The judgment was delivered on February 16, 2026, by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas in an appeal filed by the State against the 2018 acquittal order.
The case arose from a complaint made on May 3, 2011, by Chandrajit Yadav, who alleged that the then Station House Officer of Dhaurpur Police Station demanded ₹50,000 to dilute charges against his son in a criminal case. According to the prosecution, the complainant initially paid ₹5,000 and later ₹10,000, but when further payment was demanded, he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau.
A trap was laid on May 4, 2011. The prosecution claimed that the accused was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount. During the trap proceedings, phenolphthalein-treated currency notes were recovered, and the hand-wash test reportedly turned pink, indicating contact with the tainted money.
The Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act had acquitted the accused in June 2018, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient of “demand” of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court raised doubts about the authenticity of the recorded conversations and questioned the admissibility of the compact disc containing the alleged demand.
However, the High Court disagreed with that assessment. It noted that the memory card and compact disc containing the recorded conversations were seized directly from the complainant and produced as primary electronic evidence. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the Court observed that a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is not required when the original electronic device is produced and proved by its owner.
The Court also referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), reiterating that proof of demand and acceptance can be established not only through direct evidence but also through circumstantial evidence. It emphasized that testimony of independent panch witnesses, recovery of tainted money, and the phenolphthalein test are significant pieces of evidence.
In this case, one of the panch witnesses testified that he overheard the conversation regarding money and saw the complainant hand over the amount. He further stated that when the trap team arrived, the accused threw the money into the courtyard. The chemical test conducted thereafter turned pink, supporting the prosecution’s case. The High Court found that this evidence was not effectively shaken in cross-examination.
The Court held that the trial court’s findings suffered from “patent perversity” and misreading of material evidence. It concluded that only one reasonable view was possible from the evidence on record, and that view pointed to the guilt of the accused.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the State’s appeal, set aside the acquittal dated June 30, 2018, and convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Considering that the incident occurred before the 2014 amendment to the Act, the Court sentenced the accused to one year of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹25,000. The period already spent in custody between May 5 and July 18, 2011, will be set off. The convicted officer has been directed to surrender before the trial court within three months to serve the remaining sentence.
Case Reference : ACQA No. 260 of 2019, State of Chhattisgarh v. Tobius Xaxa; Counsel for the Appellant/State: Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, with Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer; Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate.
