Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Vrajlal Lakhabhai Domadiya on 14 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/287/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 287 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--- NO
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VRAJLAL LAKHABHAI DOMADIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DP KINARIWALA, ADVOCATE FOR MR NIKUNJ D BALAR(2763) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 14/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Vrunda Shah for the Appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. D.P. Kinariwala with learned advocate Mr. Nikunj Balar for the Respondent.
2. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant-State under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 20.04.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Special Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed May 21 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 21 21:33:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/287/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/05/2025 undefined (A.C.B.) Case No.03 of 2003, by which the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the present Respondent-original accused.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1 The complainant, Karmatabhai Jethabhai (Rabari), a resident of Pankhan, was operating a passenger rickshaw (Reg.
No. GJ-11-V-3113) on 18.11.2002, when an accident occurred near Koylana village due to ongoing drainage work. As a result, certain passengers sustained injuries, and a report was lodged at Keshod Police Station. In connection with the said incident, Constable Vajubhai conducted a panchnama and informed the complainant that a Non-Cognizable (NC) offence was to be registered. It is alleged that, on 20.11.2002, the said constable demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- to avoid further legal complications, which was negotiated to Rs. 800/-. The complainant allegedly paid Rs. 500/- immediately, with a promise to pay the balance Rs. 300/- later.
3.2 Subsequently, the accused allegedly made repeated demands for the remaining amount. Unwilling to comply further, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Rajkot. A trap was laid, and on receiving the pre-arranged signal, the raiding party, including panch witnesses, apprehended the accused while allegedly accepting the bribe. The bribe amount of Rs. 300/- was recovered from the possession of the accused, and anthracene traces were found on his person. After obtaining requisite sanction, FIR bearing CR No. II-11/2002 was registered, and the accused was Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed May 21 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 21 21:33:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/287/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/05/2025 undefined arrested.
3.3 Upon investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The matter proceeded to trial. The accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Junagadh, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, particularly, paragraphs no.23 to 26 therefrom, it is seen that there are various contradictions in the depositions of the panch- witnesses, the complainant etc., which are duly appreciated by the learned trial court.
5. After going through the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and the view taken by the learned trial Court being a plausible view, the same cannot be interfered in an appeal.
6. It is also seen from the statement of the accused under Section-313 of Cr.P.C., particularly, para-2 thereof, that the accused has specifically stated that the complaint itself was registered on 18.11.2002, whereas, the trap for the purpose of alleged demand of 'bribe' to not file the complaint, was on 30.11.2002. There is no evidence to the contrary, which has been brought on record by the prosecution. The aforesaid clearly proves that if the complaint itself was filed on Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed May 21 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 21 21:33:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/287/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/05/2025 undefined 18.11.2002, there could be no occasion whatsoever for the accused to demand a bribe on a subsequent date not to file the said complaint. Therefore, it is clear that the entire case of the complainant is false and has been proved to be so in the course of the trial.
7. In the result, the present appeal fails and is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed May 21 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 21 21:33:24 IST 2025