Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vinubhai Haribhai Solanki on 5 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1771 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VINUBHAI HARIBHAI SOLANKI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEET THAKKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) 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 18.03.2008 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Special (ACB) Case No.02 of 1998. By way of the impugned judgment and order, Accused have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them under Sections-7, 12, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:53:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined
2. The respondent no.1 herein happens to be the Accused no.1 reported to be died pending the appeal, hence appeal qua respondent no.1 stands abetted.
3. The short facts emerging from the record, reads as under:-
3.1. It is the case of the complainant that he was a delivery boy of gas cylinder in the area of Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar and he was threatened by accused on 14.05.1997 by informing him that accused are police personnel and booked complainant in false case of illegally selling gas from the bottles. Accused have demanded Rs.100/- each, in all Rs.300/- from complainant. So, he has approached the concerned Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Office and after getting material particulars of all accused persons, a formal complaint has been filed by the complainant and thereafter, department has arranged for the trap.
3.2. On the next day i.e. on 15.05.1997, it was alleged that accused no.1 came to the place of complainant and having collected Rs.300/- as a bribe in presence of Panch Witnesses from the complainant, thereafter on chasing him, ultimately recovered sum of Rs.300/- received from complainant. Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:53:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined 3.3. After registering FIR and on completion of investigation, all three accused have been charge-sheeted for alleged offence under Sections-7, 12, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered with the Trial Court and charges were framed at Exhibit-5.
4. Oral and documentary evidences have been led by the prosecution but the Trial Court ultimately acquitted the accused from all charges.
5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Meet Thakkar for Appellant - State.
5.1. Learned APP would submit that prosecution has successfully proved all charges against accused, but, in view of the demise of the accused no.1, as the appeal stands abetted qua him, this Court may consider the case of prosecution for the remaining accused. 5.2. Learned APP would further submit that complainant was not a literate person, may not remember each and every fact of commission of crime i.e. demand and acceptance by accused, would not give benefit of doubt to accused. Learned APP would further submit that Panch Witness has also Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:53:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined supported the case of complainant and money recovered from the house of one Natubhai who was friend of accused no.1 whereby, charges leveled against accused have been successfully proved. So, he would request this Court to allow the appeal.
6. At the outset, it is required to be taken note of the fact that accused no.1 i.e. Vinubhai Haribhai Solanki died during pendency of appeal whereby, appeal stand abetted qua him. There is no other clinching evidence involved against accused no.2 and 3 for alleged commission of crime and as such, charges against them are not supported by any oral and documentary evidence.
6.1. Apart from the aforesaid aspect of the case, when this Court has re-appreciated oral and documentary evidence on record, it appears that as per the oral evidence of complainant, accused no.1 had not come on scooter as alleged by Panch Witness No.1 but, some different person came on 15.05.1997 and met complainant in presence of Panch Witness and collected Rs.300/- from the complainant and left the spot. The raiding party appears to have produced two persons and requested the complainant to identify as to Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:53:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined whether one out of two was the person who collected Rs.300/- from the complainant. This fact is clearly stated by the complainant in his oral evidence. Thus, a person who has collected Rs.300/- was neither identified by complainant nor arraigned as accused by prosecution. It is true that complainant has identified accused no.1 in Test Identification (T.I.) Parade, but, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be unsafe to put reliance upon such T.I. Parade to presume involvement of accused no.1 for alleged commission of crime especially amount of bribe not recovered from accused no.1. 6.2. The recovery of money of bribe from the house of Natubhai has also remained under cloud and entire investigation undertaken is not trustworthy and reliable. It has further came on record and so observed by Trial Court in impugned judgment that sanction order issued by Sanctioning Authority to presume accused for alleged offence committed under the Corruption Act is not exhibited thereby, prosecution has not presented its case with sincerity which ultimately led to one conclusion that entire investigation to raid and conducting of trial by the prosecution is very weak. Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:53:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025 undefined
7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, when there is no direct and cogent evidence available on record which can involve accused no.2 and 3 for alleged commission of crime and also the evidence on record is shown weak and doubtful to as such involved accused no.1 in commission of crime, I am of the view that observations, reasons and findings so recorded by Trial Court is neither perverse nor erroneous and in any case not contrary to settled principle of law thereby no interference is required by this Court while exercising its appellate powers under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. 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, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Bhoomi Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:53:39 IST 2025