The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur on 17 October 2025 dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of Dr. Nirwan Kumar Tiwari, then Superintendent-cum-District Ayurved Officer, in a corruption prosecution arising from a Lokayukt trap carried out in July 1997. The court in a carefully reasoned CAV judgment by Justice Radhakishan Agrawal found that the trial court’s conclusions were a possible and permissible view of the evidence and therefore should not be disturbed.
The prosecution’s case was straightforward in outline: a subordinate officer, Ramkhilawan Mishra, complained that Dr. Tiwari demanded a bribe in connection with a reposting; a trap was organized, phenolphthalein-treated currency notes were handed over, and money said to be tainted was later recovered. Despite that, the trial court acquitted Dr. Tiwari after an evidentiary hearing, and the State challenged that acquittal under Section 378 CrPC.
On appeal the State relied on the recovery of the notes and a positive phenolphthalein test, arguing these facts established demand and acceptance. The High Court acknowledged those materials but rehearsed the trial court’s reservations: key witnesses’ accounts contained material contradictions and omissions; there was uncertainty about who actually recovered the envelope; several independent or supporting witnesses were either absent or not examined; and the hand-wash solution bottles used for testing were kept without proof of proper sealing, leaving room to suspect tampering. Taken together, the High Court concluded those gaps produced reasonable doubt about the essential elements of the offence.
The judgment also gave weight to the trial court’s careful reading of the tape-recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused, which the court noted did not clearly disclose a demand for money tied to the reposting but rather discussed other administrative matters. The complainant’s own admissions that he had approached the officer repeatedly for reposting, and inconsistencies about when and how the envelope was found, further weakened the prosecution’s narrative. The appellate bench observed that where two reasonable views of the evidence exist, the court must respect the trial court’s choice of one such view.
The High Court extensively cited recent Supreme Court guidance on appeals against acquittal, underlining that an acquittal carries a strengthened presumption of innocence and that appellate interference is appropriate only when the trial court’s view is not a possible view on the evidence. Applying those principles here, the court found no basis to reverse the acquittal and dismissed the State’s appeal.
For public servants and litigators, the ruling is a reminder of two practical points. First, procedural care in trap operations prompt recovery, independent witnesses, secure handling and sealing of test materials matters as much as the raw laboratory result. Second, appellate courts will generally not overturn an acquittal where the trial court’s interpretation of the facts is a plausible reading of conflicting testimony. The State’s challenge, the court held, did not show that the only available conclusion on the record was guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Details : ACQA No. 146 of 2010, State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), Through Police
Establishment, Lokayukt, Raipur vs Dr. Nirwan Kumar Tiwari. For the State/Appellant : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer. For the Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.