Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Karsanbhai Sagrambhai on 15 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2242/2009 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2242 of 2009
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KARSANBHAI SAGRAMBHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VRUNDA C. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KARTIK V PANDYA(2435) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 15/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Ms. Vrunda C. Shah, learned APP for the Appellant - State and Mr. Kartik V. Pandya, learned advocate for the Respondents.
2. The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.08.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track Court, Rajkot, whereby the respondents-accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
3. The case of the prosecution, in nuce, is that, from a complaint dated 21.01.1991 lodged by Haritsinh Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue May 20 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 20 23:05:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2242/2009 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined Balvantsinh Jadeja before the Deputy Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Rajkot City and Rural. The complainant, engaged in agriculture and owning a goods vehicle (Mazda truck), had lent the said vehicle for transporting a Jaan from Kharachiya to Bhadla. The vehicle, driven by his employee Premjibhai Jilubhai Jijariya, was allegedly intercepted at Bhadla by Shri Pravinsinh Jadeja, a police official posted at Bhadla Police Station, who purportedly demanded illegal gratification of ₹500/- for not initiating legal proceedings or detaining the vehicle. Upon the driver's expression of financial inability, the demand was allegedly reduced to ₹100/- as part payment.
4. The complainant approached the ACB and lodged a formal complaint. A trap was organized following due procedure. During the trap proceedings, a police official allegedly reiterated the demand by saying "Samji Lo", ["please understand"] and another explicitly demanded ₹200/-, which was paid by the driver. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal, the ACB team apprehended the accused and completed formalities of seizure and arrest. Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue May 20 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 20 23:05:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2242/2009 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined
5. A charge sheet was filed and charges were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined four witnesses and submitted nine documents. Statements under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. However, benefit of doubt having been extended, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 18.08.2009, acquitted the accused. The present appeal challenges the said order of acquittal.
6. Upon perusal of the evidence, I am of the view that according to the original complaint, the demand was raised by one Pravinsinh Jadeja whereas in course of the trap, the accused persons against whom there was no initial complaint whatsoever, came to be arrested and prosecuted. It is also seen that the PW-1, the complainant - Haritsinh and PW-2 - Premjibhai, the owner and driver respectively who would have been crucial in proving the demand, had turned hostile. Therefore, I find that in the instant case not only is there, no initial complaint against the present accused persons but the original complainant had himself turned hostile. In such circumstances, in my opinion, it would be impossible to bring home the guilt of the accused. Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue May 20 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 20 23:05:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2242/2009 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined The learned Trial Court in its finding particularly at paras 27 to 31 of the impugned judgment has correctly appreciated the evidence and has reached to the only inevitable conclusion i.e. the innocence of the present accused persons. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
7. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J) MAYA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue May 20 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 20 23:05:03 IST 2025