Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Janardan Hariharrai Mankad on 13 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2403/2005 ORDER DATED: 13/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2403 of 2005
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JANARDAN HARIHARRAI MANKAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS. BHAVINI N. BUCH(5403) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 13/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the State and learned advocate Mr. Nirad D. Buch for the Respondent.
2. The appeal is being filed by the State of Gujarat to challenge the judgment and order dated 31-3-2005 passed by the Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.10, Rajkot in Special (ACB) Case No. 17/1993.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant Amarsinh Maganlal Makwana was transferred from Lodhika Panchayat as driver to Malaria Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 16 01:37:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2403/2005 ORDER DATED: 13/05/2025 undefined department in Rajkot and he resumed his duty at Rajkot. However the order of transfer was revoked. The accused demanded bribe of Rs.2000/- from the complainant for the said work. On 17-5-1993 he was arrested while taking first instalment of bribe money of Rs.500/-. Thereafter FIR being I-C.R. No.7/1993, was registered at A.C.B. Police Station, Rajkot against the accused for the offences punishable u/s. 7 read with Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by the impugned judgment and order dated 31-3- 2005 in Special (ACB) Case No.17/1993. 3.1 After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet for the offences punishable u/s.7 read with Section 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Act. Thereafter the matter was committed to the Hon'ble Sessions Court and the case was registered as Special (ACB) Case No.17/1993.
3.2 The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore led evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.10, Rajkot passed Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 16 01:37:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2403/2005 ORDER DATED: 13/05/2025 undefined order of Acquittal on 31-3-2005.
3.3 The appeal is filed against the said Judgment, as the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.10, Rajkot, has not properly appreciated the evidence available on the record of the case as well as legal provisions applicable to the facts of the case.
4. The State is in appeal against the order of acquittal of the Respondent accused who was allegedly caught red handed taking a bribe of Rs.500/-. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the complainant Amarsinh Maganlal Makwana was transferred from Lodhika Panchayat as a driver to Malaria Department at Rajkot.
5. The said order of transfer came to be revoked and the accused had demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant to ensure that the complainant was transferred back to Lodhika. Accordingly, upon the trap being set with the complainant and two Panch Witnesses, the accused is said to have taken a bribe of Rs.500/- comprising 500/- rupee notes. It was the case of Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 16 01:37:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2403/2005 ORDER DATED: 13/05/2025 undefined PW-2 - Panch Witness No.1, that the complainant had given the bribe-money which was laced with Anthracene powder and the accused had extended his right arm to accept the said bribe money and put it in the pocket of his shirt and upon the signal being given to the raiding party, the accused had taken the bribe amount out of his pocket and had thrown it on the floor. Upon full fledged trial, the accused came to be acquitted because the complainant himself had turned hostile. Further the Panch No.2, a crucial witness, was not examined by the prosecution and the Investigating Officer categorically deposed that only the two panch witnesses and the complainant could have witnessed the transaction.
6. In view of the fact that the crucial Panch Witness being a Panch No.2 has not even been examined and the complainant has been declared hostile after cross examination, there is no corroboration whatsoever of Panch No.1 i.e PW - 2. While acquitting the accused, it has been noted by the learned trial Court that the sole panch witness seemed to be heavily tutored and had literally crammed his testimony and had parroted his deposition.
Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 16 01:37:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2403/2005 ORDER DATED: 13/05/2025 undefined
7. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to bring home its case within the acceptable limits and the trial Court was justified in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
8. Anyways, the incident is of the year 1993 and the acquittal is of the year 2005. Hence also, I find it appropriate not to substitute the opinion of the learned trial Court with any other opinion which may also have been plausible. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
9. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J) MAYA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 16 01:37:09 IST 2025