Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Ushaben Sharadbhai Shah on 2 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 160 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
USHABEN SHARADBHAI SHAH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.JIRGA JAVERI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. KB ANANDJIWALA(134) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 02/06/2025
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 02/03/2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Special Case No.4 of 2000. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against her under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Corruption Act").
Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined
2. The short facts emerging from the record are read as under:-
2.1 It is the case of complainant that the accused having demanded sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe to facilitate him to get loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, he has lodged complaint with the Anti-
Corruption Office, thereby complaint came to be registered against the accused.
2.2 As per the case of the complainant, who was examined as PW-1, he passed SSC but was unemployed. Therefore, he had applied for a loan available to illiterate persons, thereby he had visited Narmada Bhavan and submitted necessary form along with project report. The complainant met Ushaben Shah (Accused), who had visited his place and advised complainant to avail the loan facility from a Co-operative Bank, as Nationalized Banks are already overburden. The complainant had tried to avail loan facility from a Co- operative Bank, but having not received any positive response, contacted accused, who assured complainant to get loan approved for which he was advised to pay her Rs.1,000/- as bribe.
2.3 So, the complainant had contacted the Office of Anti-
Corruption to formally register the complaint, and after completing all procedural formalities, including the registration of F.I.R. by officer concern, alongwith panchas went to the office of the accused, where after handing over a bribe of Rs.1,000/- to the accused, a raid was conducted by the officer of A.C.B. 2.4 After completing the panchnama, accused was booked under the offence and arrested. Further, on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against accused for alleged offence of demanding and accepting Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined bribe and Special Case was registered with Trial Court after getting sanction from competent authority of department concern wherein accused was working.
3. The prosecution led following oral and documentary evidence in support of it's case and to bring home the charges against accused.
Oral Evidences of Prosecution
Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh.
1. Amitbhai Jayantibhai Kayasth 10
2. Manilal Somabhai Vagadiya 16
3. Indravadan Balkrushna Vyas 41
4. Ramesh Mukundlal Shah 52
5. Vanrajsinh Juvansinh Gohil 54
Documentary Evidences
Sr.No. Document Particulars Exh.
1. Original Complaint 13
2. Panchnama regarding bribery trap 21
3. Seizure Memo of muddamal seized from 22
the accused
4. Loan Application Form of District 23
Industrial Center, Vadodara
5. Form filled by government official after 24
conducting investigation on-site
6. Application of Complainant for Loan 25
7. Application Form for an Employment 26
Scheme
8. Consent Letter 27
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
9. Tax Receipt of Complainant 28
10 Tax Receipt of Shri Kanchanlal Bhadpunja 29
11. Quotation of Priya Tiles 30
12. School Leaving Certificate of 31
Complainant
13. Attempt Certificate of Sayaji High School 32
14. Copy of Complainant's Mark-sheet 33
15. Tax Receipt of Kanchanlal Kayasth 34
16. Tax Receipt of Kanchanlal Kayasth 35
17. Copy of Complainant's Ration Card 36
18. Project report submitted by the 37
complainant to obtain a loan
19. Complainant's registration card from the 38
District Employment Exchange Office
20. Order for sanction to prosecute the 53
accused in a criminal case
21. Closing Pursis filed by Ld. APP 55
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 not able to prove the charges beyond doubt, thereby acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against her.
5. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.Jirga Javeri 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 evidence of witnesses examined by prosecution.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.Jirga Javeri would Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined submit that the findings of acquittal are contrary to law and 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 has demanded and accepted Rs.1,000/- from complainant, thereby, proved the ingredients of Section-7 read with Section-13 (1) (d) (ii) of Corruption Act.
6.2 Learned APP would submit that Trial Court has erroneously observed that accused has not demanded bribe from complainant and erroneously came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove charges beyond doubt.
6.3 Learned APP would further submit that oral evidence on record more-particularly evidence of complainant would support the case of prosecution, who has categorically deposed that accused had demanded Rs.1,000/- to facilitate process of loan by accused and so, raid was conducted by following due process envisaged under law.
6.4 Learned APP would further submit that merely there are some minor contradictions in preparing panchnama, not examining any independent witness available during course of raid, accused would not ipso facto entitled to get benefit as otherwise, charges are duly proved beyond doubt.
6.5 Thus, the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused are unjust, improper, perverse and unwarranted to the facts of the prosecution case and thereby, has committed an error in acquitting the accused. It is further submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused and learned Trial Court has committed an error both on law and facts.
Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined 6.6 Thus, the learned Trial Court has wrongly recorded the order of acquittal, which deserves to be quashed and appropriate sentences for the offences be passed against all the accused and he urged this Court to allow the captioned appeal.
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) 4 SCC 731 wherein it held as under.
"88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
88.1 (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
88.2 (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
88.3 (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
88.4 (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.5 (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
88.6 (f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
88.7 (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d)
(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.8 (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
(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 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, Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined 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) 8.2 The law on the issue germen in the present appeal has also Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its recent judgment in the case of State of Lokayuktha Police, Devanagere V/s. C. B. Nagaraj delivered on 19 th May, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No.1157/2015 [2025 INSC 736], wherein held as under:
"25. It is pertinent to note that till 05.02.2007, when the Respondent had conducted the physical/spot inspection, there is not even a whisper of there being any demand of bribe. Moreover, when the Complainant went back to the Respondent's office at 5:30 PM with the money, the prosecution case itself as per the deposition of its witnesses makes it clear that the Respondent had informed the Complainant that he had already forwarded the concerned file. Thus, if the same is accepted, there was no occasion for the Complainant to go ahead with paying the amount, which he claims to be in the nature of bribe demanded by the Respondent, after the work for which the bribe was purportedly sought, had already been done. The observation of the High Court to this extent is correct that just because money changed hands, in cases like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain - beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed. In the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the two other components - of payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain would not be complete. A penal law has to be strictly construed [Md. Rahim Ali v State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 @ Paragraph 45 and Jay Kishan v State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296 @ Paragraph 24]. While we will advert to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act hereinafter, there is no cavil that while a reverse onus under specific statute can be placed on an accused, even then, there cannot be a presumption which casts an uncalled for onus on the accused. Chandrasha (supra) would not apply as demand has not been proven. In Paritala Sudhakar v State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072, it was stated thus:
'21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250:
'22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application. (Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576: (2005) 8 Scale 246] and T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401: (2006) 1 Scale 116])"
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, first it is required to be considered as to whether the accused had demanded bribe from complainant or not and is there any serious error of law and facts committed by Trial Court while acquitting accused?
11. The complainant was examined as PW-1, and in his cross-
examination, he has categorically admitted that when he along with panch witness, visited the office of accused, she had informed him that she had already forwarded the loan papers of complainant to Bharat Co-operative Bank. He has Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined further admitted that accused had informed him that now further procedure would have to be undertaken by the Bank. He has also admitted that he was happy to know that his loan procedure already completed and necessary papers dispatched by the accused. It has been further admitted by the complainant that accused had not demanded any money, but from his pocket, he has given money to the accused.
12. I have minutely gone through the cross-examination of complainant-PW-1, who can be considered as a prime witness in such cases of corruption, as the complainant is considered to be a victim of alleged corruption at the instance of public servant. So far as the present case is concerned, in the cross- examination, the complainant has admitted that accused has not demanded money from him during trap conducted, despite that he has given money to accused, which she placed in her drawer from where it was recovered.
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid oral evidence of PW-1, it has come on record that there was neither any offer of money by PW-1 nor any demand of bribe by accused. So far as the bribe money is concerned, if the first ingredient i.e. demand, is not proved by prosecution and in absence of any offer made by complainant, then the question of acceptance and recovery of the alleged bribe money would pale into insignificance. It is sine qua none to prove the factum of demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money from accused to bring home charges levelled against accused which is missing in the present case.
14. The another facet, which is required to be taken note that prior to the alleged acceptance of the bribe by accused, she Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined had already processed the loan papers of PW-1 and forwarded it to the concerned Bank for further process, which has been admitted by complainant. So, the story put forward by complainant that accused had demanded bribe of Rs. 1000/ from him creates suspicion in the mind of prudent person.
15. The Trial Court has observed that prosecution has not examined any independent witness though available, including Police Constable Mr.Jashvant Singh, who was present during the raid. The observations and reasons assigned by Trial Court while passing impugned judgement is just, reasonable, infallible and as such in consonance with broad principles laid down by Honourable Supreme Court of India.
16. Thus, an overall assessment and examination of evidence would suggest that the prosecution has egregiously failed to prove the fact that accused has demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/-, thereby, failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused.
17. 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 view taken by the Trial Court having acquitted the accused by giving her benefit of doubt.
18. Considering these set of evidences on record and in light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove, which deals with the law on acquittal so also issue germen in the appeal, I am of the Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/160/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025 undefined opinion that no error has been committed by the Trial Court while acquitting the respondent.
19. 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, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) Nilesh Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Jun 03 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 03 21:37:22 IST 2025