Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Narendrasinh Ranjitsinh Zala ... on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/125/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 125 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NARENDRASINH RANJITSINH ZALA CONSTABLE,CENTRAL
EXCISE,CLASS & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RAJENDRA K JOSHI(1589) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MS. DIMPLE J RAVAL(7124) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellant - State and Mr. Rajendra K. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.10.2012 passed by learned Special Judge and 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Special A.C.B. Case No. 04 of 2009 whereby the Respondents accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:34:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/125/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Appellant-State has preferred this Appeal.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that as per the information received by the complainant Shri P.M.Sarvaiya- P.I, ACB Police Station, Bhavnagar, he called two panch witnesses and informed them about the trap. To verify the same, on 30.03.2007, at about 17:40 hours, one punter - P.W. No. 2 along with panch witness no.1 - P.W. No. 3, were traveling with a tractor containing one boat for sale, and as they were passing through the Customs and Excise check post of Alang Ship Breaking Yard at that time, the accused no.1 was present in the check post and asked the Punter to show the bill and the Punter replied that, he does not have the bill. Therefore, the accused no.1 demanded Rs.50/- and in the presence of panch no.1, the Punter had given Rs.50/- to the accused no.1 and the same was accepted by accused no.1. Thereafter, on seeing the raiding party, the accused no.1 gave the said Rs.50/- to the accused no.2, who was sitting in his office, and the accused no.2 threw the said note from the window. Thereby, the accused persons came to be tried for Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:34:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/125/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. From the evidence on record, which I have been exhaustively taken through by Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, particularly the deposition of P. W. No. 1 - Pruthviraj Mahipatsinh Sarvaiya, who is the star witness of the appellant and prosecution, it is clear that the entire panchnama was carried out not on any specific demand, but on a hunch/information that the accused was accepting bribes, anything between the sum of Rs. 50/- to Rs. 500/-. It also bears out from the deposition that when the raiding party reached the office of the accused, there was no instance whatsoever of any spot demand of a bribe. As noted earlier, there is no prior specific demand of any bribe made by the accused in any case. It appears that a Rs. 50/- note was handed over to the accused by P. W. No. 2 Kanubhai Bhayabhai Gohil, whereupon the said note was thrown out of the window when the raiding party had approached the accused. In cross-examination, however, P.W. No. 1 has categorically stated that when the Rs.50/- note was handed over to the accused no. 2, neither P.W. No. 2 nor P.W. No. 3 Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:34:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/125/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined was present in the said place.
5. In my opinion, such a deposition has to be held to be fatal to the prosecution's case. This is inter alia what has been held by the learned Special and 6 th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Special (ACB) Case No. 04 of 2009. Therefore, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the said finding and/or the resultant acquittal of the respondent, respectfully following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with appeals arising out of acquittal, as noted in the decisions of the Hon'ble Court in case of Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar and Others V/s. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 and in case of Mallappa and Other V/s. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544. Therefore, the present appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. The bailable warrant issued by this Court on 16.07.2013 stands cancelled.
7. Registry is directed to return the Records and Proceedings to the concerned Court.
(D.N.RAY,J) VARSHA DESAI Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:34:49 IST 2025