Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhavanbhai Khanabhai Vankar on 4 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2416 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHAVANBHAI KHANABHAI VANKAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MEET THAKKAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. JAVED S. QURESHI(6999) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 04/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State under Section-378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 11/09/2009 passed by learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Special A.C.B. Case No.28 of 2004. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Corruption Act").
2. The short facts emerging from the record are read as under:-
2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that one truck bearing registration No.GJ-7-U-9844, owned by the son of the complainant, was seized by the Umara Police Station. As per the release order for the said truck issued by the concerned Court, a Solvency Certificate was required to be submitted to the concerned police station to get possession of the said truck.
2.2 To avail the Solvency Certificate, the necessary paperwork was submitted to the office of Mamlatdar, Choryasi, District Surat for which complainant visited said office where the complainant came into contact with the accused, who was serving as a Circle Officer and was required to put up the necessary papers with his recommendation to the concerned Mamlatdar for issuance of the Solvency Certificate.
2.3 It is further the case of the prosecution that to complete the work of complainant, the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as bribe from complainant. So, complainant had approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau Office at Surat, which, after taking a written complaint from him, having Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined called for panchas for raid and preparing other formalities, conducted a trap on 05/07/2004.
2.4 The complainant along with the panchas, went to the office of accused, where the accused allegedly demanded and accepted the bribe from complainant in the presence of panch namely Chimanbhai Chhitubhai Vasava. Thereafter, the raiding party arrived and caught the accused red-handed.
After completing the raid and drawing the panchnama, the accused was arrested for committing the offences punishable under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Correction Act. 2.5 After registration of the F.I.R. and completion of the investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted. Thereby, a Special Case was registered before the Trial Court as per the provisions of the Corruption Act.
3. The charge below Exh.5 was framed against the accused by the Trial Court under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Corruption Act. To prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
Oral Evidences of Prosecution
Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh.
1. Champakbhai Bhanabhai Tailor 21
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
2. Chimanbhai Chhitubhai Vasava 31
3. Anilsinh Udaysinh Jadeja 35
4. Mahavirsinh Pravinsinh Raol 45
4. After conducting the Trial and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court has found that prosecution has failed to establish the case and was not able to prove the charges beyond doubt, and thereby acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
5. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Meet Thakkar for the State at length. Learned APP has taken me through various oral as well as documentary evidence, which are on record of the case. I have also independently examined and re-appreciated the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Thakkar would submit that the findings of acquittal is contrary to law and the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are erroneous and based on irrelevant material. 6.1 Learned APP would submit that the prosecution has successfully established on record that accused had demanded and accepted Rs.5,000/- from the complainant, thereby, proved the ingredients of Section-7 read with Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined Section-13 of the Corruption Act.
6.2 Learned APP would submit that the Trial Court has erroneously observed that accused had not demanded a bribe from the complainant and erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond doubt.
6.3 Learned APP would further submit that the prosecution has successfully proved all the charges levelled against the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence and that the accused ought to have been punished for the crime committed by him.
6.4 Learned APP would submit that merely because complainant turned hostile would not ipso facto be a ground to record the order of acquittal. It is submitted that the Trial Court has erroneously ignored the convincing evidence on record, inasmuch as the demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of bribe from the accused and thereby wrongly acquitted the accused from the charge.
6.5 Learned APP would further submit that there may be some minor contradictions in the evidence of panch-witness who was present at the time of raid, but considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, such minor contradictions Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined would not be sufficient grounds to acquit the accused. 6.6 Learned APP would further submit that the prosecution has led evidence to bring home the charge to be proved against accused and for the same, the accused ought to have been convicted.
7. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, I would first like to remind myself the position of law propounded by Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding acquittal appeal especially in Anti-Corruption cases.
8. It would be apt to refer and rely upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in a case of Neeraj Dutta V/s. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in (2023) 18 SCC 251, wherein it held as under:
"14. Even the issue of presumption under Section-20 of the P.C. Act has been answered by the Constitution Bench by holding that only on proof of the facts in issue, Section-20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that illegal gratification was for the purpose of motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 (as it existed prior to the amendment of 2018). In fact, the Constitution Bench has approved two decisions by the Benches of three Hon'ble Judges in B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy. There is another decision of a three-Judges' Bench in N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N., which follows the view taken in B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy."
"18. Section-7, as existed prior to 26-07-2018, was different from the present Section-7. The unamended Section-7 which is applicable in the present case, Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined specifically refers to "any gratification". The substituted Section-7 does not use the word "gratification", but it uses a wider term "undue advantage". When the allegation is of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof by the accused, it must be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. The fact that the demand and acceptance of gratification were for motive or reward as provided in Section-7 can be proved by invoking the presumption under Section-20 provided the basic allegations of the demand and acceptance are proved."
"21. The allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision of the Constitution Bench does not dilute this elementary requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved. The Constitution Bench has laid down that the proof need not be only by direct, oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. Therefore, in this case, we will have to examine whether there is any direct evidence of demand. If we come to a conclusion that there is no direct evidence of demand, this Court will have to consider whether there is any circumstantial evidence to prove the demand."
(emphasis supplied) 8.1 It would be also appropriate to refer and rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mallappa and Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544, wherein scope of acquittal is succinctly discussed and elaborated held thus:-
"24. We may firstly discuss the position of law regarding the scope of intervention in a criminal appeal. For, that is the foundation of this challenge. It is Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal."
"25. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity."
"26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The 'two-views theory' has been judicially recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, 2015 10 SCC 230 "13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and on appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial court was a possible Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined one. Thus, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N., 2002 9 SCC 639 has laid down that as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to interfere in appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the acquittal has been dealt with by this Court, thus:
"9. We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. If the appreciation of evidence by the trial court did not suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of acquittal could not have been set aside. The view taken by the learned trial court was a reasonable view and even if by any stretch of imagination, it could be said that another view was possible, that was not a ground sound enough to set aside an order of acquittal.""
(emphasis supplied) In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., 2022 6 SCC 294 the Hon'ble Supreme Court analyzed the relevant decisions and summarized the approach of the appellate Court while deciding an appeal from the order of acquittal. It observed thus:
"7. It is well settled that:
7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, 2019 5 SCC 436 Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., 2020 10 SCC 166) 7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P., 1955 AIR(SC) 807) 7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, 1998 5 SCC 412)"
(emphasis supplied) Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined
9. Thus, it is now a well-settled legal position of law that a heavy burden is cast upon the prosecution to prove that the accused has demanded and accepted the bribe, and the same would have to be recovered from accused. In a case where any of these ingredients are missing, the charges levelled against accused under Section-7 read with Section-13 would not be attracted.
10. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is required to be considered as to whether any serious error of law and fact was committed by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused ?
11. I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as the oral evidence on record. After reappreciating evidence, including the oral evidence on record, the following facts are found from the evidence led by prosecution, which reads as under:-
(i). The complainant appears to have not support the case of the prosecution, as he was declared hostile during the course of his oral evidence. Even after cross-examination of complainant by the learned APP, nothing turned out against the accused, as the complainant was not able to give the full name of the accused and was unable to identify him;Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined
(ii). The muddamal article which was seized by the raiding party was not identified by the complainant, including the complainant was not able to confirm which pant the accused was wearing on the day of the trap, which was also seized;
(iii). Although, the complainant was a B.Com, LL.B graduate, he was not aware of the reason why truck of his son was seized by the police.
(iv). It has been categorically admitted by the complainant during the cross-examination conducted by the accused that, prior to the initiation of ACB proceedings, his son had already got possession of the aforementioned truck and the same was in his custody. So, there was no reason for him to visit office of accused.
(v). It has further emerged from evidence of the complainant that when he along with the panch, met the accused, the accused had informed him that he had already forwarded the recommendation letter to the concerned Mamlatdar for issuance of Solvency Certificate in favour of the complainant.
(vi). Furthermore, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused had no authority to issue a Solvency Certificate, rather he had already sent his opinion Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined on the day on which it was sought from the accused. The complainant being learned person would not readily agreed to pay bribe to a person who has no authority to issue certificate. This itself weaken case of prosecution coupled with other factors coming forth on record of the case.
(vii). So far as the evidence of panch-witness (PW-2) is concerned, who accompanied the complainant, in his chief examination stated that the accused allegedly demanded and accepted money from the complainant. However, from his cross- examination revealed that PW-2 was unable to recollect the crucial details of the raid. From his entire evidence, it appears that he did not remember the exact incident that occurred during the course of the raid and admitted that the entire panchnama was prepared by the trapping officer and that he had simply signed in it. Furthermore, PW-2 has admitted during his cross-examination that he could not confirm as to whether any illegal demand of a bribe made by the accused from the complainant in his presence. A reading of the oral evidence of PW-2 suggests that he could not recall the exchange of words that taken place between the complainant and the accused in his presence, and therefore, he did not fully support the case of the prosecution. Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined
12. Thus, upon overall reappreciation of the oral evidence that came on record and having found the aforesaid inherent defects in the evidence led by the prosecution, which goes to the root of the matter, would create suspicion about the entire story put forward by the prosecution in relation to the offence in question. Once a serious doubt is created from the evidence on record, as per the settled legal position of law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta (supra) and Mallappa (supra), the benefit of doubt is required to be granted in favour of the accused.
13. Furthermore, when the accused had already forwarded his opinion on the same day on which it was sought from him and the complainant having admitted this fact that prior to the initiation of A.C.B. proceedings, the truck belonging to his son had already been released by the police and was lying at his home, it would reason to believe that upon getting the Solvency Certificate and producing it before the concerned police station, the son of the complainant got possession of the truck.
14. In light of the aforesaid fact, the accused having already sent his opinion prior to the trap in question, there would be no question of any illegal gratification on the part of the accused to be received from the complainant. So, entire case of prosecution falls having not even proved though examined witnesses. Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2416/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined
15. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court are just, reasonable and infallible in as much as it is not contrary to the settled principle of law as there is no possibility of taking any contrary view in the matter.
16. So, after overall assessment of evidence and its re- appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Trial Court, I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court having acquitted the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt.
17. Considering these set of evidence on record and in light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred hereinabove, which deals with the law on acquittal as well as the issue germane in the appeal, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the Trial Court while acquitting the respondent.
18. Consequently, the appeal is DISMISSED. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, called for, shall be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) Nilesh Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:43:49 IST 2025