Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vrajlal Jiva Gelani Barot on 14 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1692 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VRAJLAL JIVA GELANI BAROT
================================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 14/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined Trial Court') in Special NDPS Case No. 09 of 2011 on 16.07.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent - accused from the offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act').
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. On 23.03.2011, the complainant, Rambhai Vashrambhai Sagar, Unarmed ASI, Special Operation Group, Jamnagar, received secret information that the accused was selling cannabis at the entrance of Kalawad, opposite Khodiyar Hotel on the plinth of Khatri Electronics, which was closed and the complainant and other members of the Special Operation Group, Jamnagar, raided the place and found the accused with 235 grams Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined of cannabis worth Rs.1410/- and Rs.130/- from the sale of the cannabis and in all with muddamal of Rs.1530/-. The complainant, Rambhai Vashrambhai Sagar, filed the complaint at the Jamnagar City 'A' Division Police Station under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, which came to be registered as Jamnagar City 'A' Division Police Station, II-CR No.114 of 2011.
2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of Sessions and the same was registered as Special NDPS Case No. 09 of 2011.
2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6, wherein, the Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 09 witnesses and produced 22 documentary evidence in support of the case.
2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused for the offence.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of natural justice. The learned Trial Court has erred in Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined evaluating the evidence on record of the case and without appreciating the evidence in its real perspective. That there are directed and indirect evidence connecting the respondents with crime produced in this Court, in spite of the fact, the learned Trial Court, without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses which has fully supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is without giving any cogent and convincing reasons, illegal, invalid and improper, and therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State. Though served, the respondent - accused has not appeared either in-person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
6. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must. Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined
7. As per the settled principles of law in acquittal appeal, the evidence of the prosecution on record is re-appreciated and PW-1, Ajitsingh Bachubha Jadeja, examined at Exh.10 and PW-2, Umedbhai Jayarambhai Nakum, examined at Exh.12, are the panch witnesses of the panchnama produced at Exh.11, whereby, Police Head Constable Dipakbhai Dharamshibhai Patel of the Special Operation Group, Jamnagar produced the muddamal before the PSO, Jamnagar City 'A' Division Police Station and a panchnama was drawn, which is produced at Exh.11. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
7.1. PW-3, Ketan Hasmukhbhai Mangi, examined at Exh.13, and PW-4, Navinbhai Raghavjibhai Nanda, examined at Exh.15, are the panch witnesses of the panchnama, whereby, the complainant and the other members of the raiding party went for the raid and caught the accused red handed and the panchnama is produced at Exh.14. As per the panchnama, the preliminary panchnama was drawn, and thereafter, the entire procedure till Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined they reached the spot and caught the accused and called the person with the weighing scales and the F.S.L. and the detailed panchnama was drawn which is produced at Exh.14, but both the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
7.2. PW-5, Rambhai Vashrambhai Sagar, examined at Exh.17, is the complainant, who has narrated the entire procedure that he had done right from receiving the secret information till the accused was arrested. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had received the information between 15:45 hours and 16:00 hours and he had informed the Superior Officer and he had given the information in oral to Hadiya Saheb at 16:10 hours. They did not send any dummy person to verify whether the accused was, in fact, engaged in selling of cannabis and before searching the accused, he did not give any information in writing to the accused whether the accused wanted to be searched by a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Besides the complaint, he did not have any other Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined evidence to show that he had gone for the raid and no chillum or any other instrument to consume cannabis was found from the accused.
7.3. PW-6, Ranchhodbhai Amirbhai Hadiya, examined at Exh.19, was also a member of the raiding party along with the complainant and he has supported the case of the prosecution and narrated in detail the steps that were undertaken by them. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that they did not send any dummy person to verify whether the accused was, in fact, selling the cannabis and they did not give any information in writing to the accused as to whether he wanted to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. No instruments for consumption of the cannabis was found from the accused. 7.4. PW-7, Navalsinh Kalubha Chawda, examined at Exh.20 is the PSO of Jamnagar City "A' Division Police Station, who has registered the complaint and has produced the extract of the station diary at Exh.21.
Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined 7.5. PW-8, Maheshbhai Mansukhlal Jadiya, examined at Exh.22, is the person, who was called by the complainant to weigh the muddamal, but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he does not know what was weighed and he has never seen the accused.
7.6. PW-9, Naranbhai Karsanbhai Chanchiya, examined at Exh.23, is the Investigating Officer, who has produced all the necessary documents and has stated all the procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is on record that besides the complainant, PW-5, Rambhai Vashrambhai Sagar and PW-6, Head Constable Navalsinh Kalubha, no witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and there is nothing on record to show that, in fact, the information was received by the complainant. The complainant and PW-6 Head Constable Navalsinh Kalubha, have clearly stated that before searching the accused, they did not give Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined any information to the accused in writing about whether he wanted to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and there is no document on record to show that such information was received by the accused. Hence, it is a breach of the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Moreover, no weighing scale was found from the possession of the accused as per the case of the prosecution and there is no evidence on record that the accused was, in fact, selling cannabis. Both the complainant and the witness have stated that they did not send any dummy person to verify whether the accused was, in fact, engaged in selling cannabis and the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-8 Maheshbhai Mansukhlal is the independent witness, who had weighed the cannabis for the police but he has too not supported the case of the prosecution. In the entire evidence, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused was, in fact, arrested with cannabis and as per the say of the complainant, the information was sent to the Superior Officer by the document produced at Exh.24, but there is nothing on Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined record to show what time was the information sent and at what time it was received by the Superior Officer. 8.1. Even otherwise, the accused has been charged with the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and the quantity of cannabis found in the possession of the accused was 235 grams, which is a small quantity as upto 1000grams would be small quantity and the commercial quantity is 20 kgs. Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act reads as under:
"20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. --Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,--
(a) XXX XXX XXX
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports,
imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,--
(i) XXX XXX XXX
(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),--
(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; As per the record of the case, the accused was arrested on the day when the raid had taken place i.e. on 23.03.2011 and Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined the accused was in custody till 16.07.2012 and was tried as an under-trial prisoner and the accused has undergone almost 16 months of imprisonment.
9. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined
10. The judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special NDPS Case No. 09 of 2011 dated 16.07.2012, Ahmedabad is hereby confirmed.
11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S. KAZI Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Aug 18 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 18 22:33:35 IST 2025