Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ranchhodji Nathuji Vaghela on 5 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2020 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RANCHHODJI NATHUJI VAGHELA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 05/06/2025
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 11/04/2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Special Case No.20 of 2005. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined him under Sections-7 and 13(1)(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 Gopalbhai Nenabhai Kankodiya (Vaghari), a resident of village Magarvada, Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha, was alleged to have been involved in selling liquor without any permit and so, having allegedly been involved in liquor business, was subjected to alleged harassment by the Chhapi Police Station, Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha. He was arrested on 17/10/2004 and thereafter, the accused sought bribe of Rs.1,000/- from family members of said Gopalbhai to release him.
2.2 As per the case of the prosecution, Head Constable Mr. Dhasuram along with the accused, came to the residence of Gopalbhai and having demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- and after deliberation, agreed to accept Rs.800/-. Again, on 28/10/2004, when the amount of bribe had not reached to the accused, the said police personnel visited again and threatened the mother of said Gopalbhai to pay the bribe. Under this background of facts, the said Gopalbhai approached ACB office and gave his written complaint on 28/10/2004 against the accused as well as Head Constable Mr.Dhasuram. Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined 2.3 After the complaint of said Gopalbhai was recorded, the necessary paperwork was completed, Panchas were called and ultimately, a raid was arranged. The raiding party including complainant, reached to the Chhapi Police Station and in presence of the Panchas, the accused demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant and was caught red- handed by the raiding party. So, after recording Panchnama and having found that accused had committed the alleged crime of asking for and accepting bribe from the complainant, on getting sanction from the competent authority, the accused was charge-sheeted before the Special Court. 2.4 After registration of the F.I.R. and completion of the investigation, a Special Case was registered before the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections-7 and 13(1) (2) of the Correction Act. The charge (Exh.6) was framed against the accused by the Trial Court. Upon completion of the trial, the Trial Court has not found the accused guilty of committing the offence under which he was charged and thereby, he was acquitted from such charge levelled against him.
3. The prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence in support of its case and to bring home the charges against the accused.
Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined Oral Evidences of Prosecution Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh. 1. Gopalbhai Nenabhai Kankodiya 15 2. Mukeshkumar Dashrathlal Patel 26 3. Sahebkhan Isamkhan (Police Constable) 38 4. Shaileshkumar Mangalbhai Katara 40 5. Prakashrao Vinayakrao Mane 43 Documentary Evidences Sr.No. Document Particulars Exh. 1. Complaint 16 2. Panchnama of the trap 28 3. Seizure Memo 30 4. Prosecution sanction order 41 5. Letter for assigning government 44 employees for confidential work 6. Sanction letter given by T.D.O. Sidhhpur 45 7. Report of P.I. Shri Mane 46 8. Slip related to the complainant's liquor 47 offense 9. Dispatch entry 48 10. F.S.L.'s report with receipt of the seized 49 muddamal 11. Letter from P.S.I. regarding details of the 50 offence 12. Copy of weekly diary of P.S.I. of Chhapi, 51 Police Station 13. Copy of Patrolbook Bit No.2 of A.S.I. 52 Mahamadkhan Sindhi 14. Copy of Notebook of Head Constable 54 Samantsinh Godaji
4. After conducting the trial and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court has found that the prosecution has failed to Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined establish its case and was not able to prove the charges beyond doubt, thereby acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
5. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the State at length. Learned APP has taken me through the 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 APP Ms. Jhaveri would 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 Ms. Jhaveri would submit that the prosecution has successfully established on record that the accused has demanded and accepted Rs.800/- from the complainant, thereby, proved the ingredients of Section-7 read with Section-13 of the Corruption Act.
6.2 Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri 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 Ms. Jhaveri would further submit that the Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined 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 Ms. Jhaveri 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 Ms. Jhaveri would submit that the Trial Court has drawn a wrong presumption against the case of the prosecution while giving undue advantage to minor contradictions alleged to have remained in evidence of the complainant. It is submitted that once complainant having clearly stated that accused having accepted bribe of Rs.800/- from the complainant, there was no reason to acquit him from the charge.
6.6 Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri would further submit that though complainant turned hostile, the panchas have supported the case of the prosecution, wherein it has been clearly established that the accused, misusing his position, had Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined unauthorizedly compelled the complainant to pay a bribe to save him from future complaints and/or remand in connection with prohibition cases.
6.7 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.
6.8 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) Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined 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, 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 Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined 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])"
(emphasis supplied)
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. This Court after re-appreciating and re-examining the evidence on record, has found the following lacuna and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution as under:
11.1 The complainant turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Nonetheless, when he was cross-examined by prosecution, his evidence cannot be discarded. The complainant has admitted that at the time of the raid, the Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined accused was not accompanied by his superior. 11.2 The complainant had alleged in the complaint that Head Constable Mr. Dhasuram came along with the accused to demand a bribe; however, for reasons best known to the prosecution, Head Constable Mr. Dhasuram and PSI Mr.Rana were never arraigned as accused. As such, no investigation was carried out in this regard.
11.3 It has been further admitted by a prosecution witness, more particularly the Trapping Officer Mr. Rana-PW5 (Exh.43), that the amount of the bribe allegedly demanded by the accused would not fall within the jurisdiction of his office situated at Mehsana. Even as per the case of the complainant, he first approached the ACB office in Palanpur. 11.4 The complainant has further admitted that the raid was undertaken by PSI Mr.Rana and the presence of the accused was not confirmed prior to it.
11.5 The purpose of filing the complaint (Exh.16) was to teach a lesson to the police and to some extent, the complainant and his mother were successful, having not received any further harassment after filing the said complaint. 11.6 The complainant has admitted that the accused has not demanded any money from his mother and thereby, it is not Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined proved that the accused had first demanded money from the complainant.
11.7 Even otherwise, as per the record, it appears that the accused had no authority either to arrest or to investigate the complainant in relation to the prohibition case; rather, PSI Mr.Rana and Head Constable Mr.Dhasuram had carried out the raid. In such a situation, there is no reason to believe that it was the accused who had sought for any bribe and actually received it.
11.8 The raid was conducted in a hotel, i.e., a public place, but neither the owner of the hotel nor any other independent witness was examined, which creates doubt, particularly after the complainant turned hostile.
11.9 The evidence of P.I. Mr. Mane-PW5, would suggest that the bribe money (currency notes) was collected from the complainant, in front of whom the accused was sitting, and not from the accused himself. However, as per the Seizure Memo, the currency notes were recovered from the actual physical possession of the accused. This appears to be a significant discrepancy regarding the recovery of the bribe money, which goes to the root of the matter.
11.10 It further appears that the Panchas have admitted that Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined when they entered into the Chhapi Police Station for the first time, they stayed for about 15 minutes, whereas, as per the panchnama, the presence of Panchas was found between 11.30 am to 14.00 pm. As per the evidence of Panchas, it appears that they have simply signed the Panchnama and same was prepared at the instance of PW5. This discrepancy speaks about manner in which Panchnama was prepared. 11.11 It has been further emerged from the evidence of the Panchas that they admitted having deposed as per the Panchnama having under threat of department proceeding may be initiated against him. The Pancha who had accompanied namely Mr. Mukeshkumar PW2, has admitted that when the complainant and the accused shook hands, he was not present. So, the evidence of panch-witness is not trustworthy and is not to be relied upon, as their independent witness has not come on record; rather, the possibility that their evidence was under threat and compulsion cannot be ruled out.
11.12 Even, as per the oral evidence of Mr. Sahebkhan-PW3, who was present at the time of the raid at the Chhapi Police Station working as an unarmed police constable, it was clearly stated that PW2 had picked up currency notes at the instruction of PI Mr. Rane-PW5, in the presence of PW-1 and Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined PW2. Thus, the bribe money was not collected from the possession of the accused.
11.13 The evidence of the complainant, the panch-witness and the Trapping Officer was contradictory and did not fully support the case of the prosecution; thereby, the charges were not proved beyond doubt, which is a sine qua non to prove the guilt of the accused.
12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the evidence and the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused are just, reasonable, and neither perverse nor erroneous; thereby, no interference is required by this Court. Having so, in alignment with the aforesaid conclusion, and I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court while having acquitted the accused from all charges.
13. 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 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.
14. Consequently, the appeal is DISMISSED. Resultantly, the Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined 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 19 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jun 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 22:50:00 IST 2025