Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Bipinbhai Khojabhai Parmar on 16 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/217/2007 ORDER DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 217 of 2007
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BIPINBHAI KHOJABHAI PARMAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DJ BHATT(164) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 16/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned APP for the Appellant - State and Mr. D. J. Bhatt, learned advocate for the Respondents.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 13.11.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Presiding officer, Fast Track Court no.4, Godhara at Panchmahal in Special (ACB) Case No.04 of 2004, whereby the Respondent(s) accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the Appellant-State has preferred this Appeal. Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue May 20 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 20 23:47:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/217/2007 ORDER DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined
3. The facts of the case are narrated in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in great detail. The same are not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Appellant -State. Therefore, the same are not repeated herein but merely relied upon by the parties and this Court.
4. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen that the prosecution has failed to prove that the trap had actually succeeded. Apart from the fact that the amount allegedly demanded was only Rs.20/-, there is conflicting evidence whether the said tainted Rs.20/- note was actually recovered, because the decoy, Ghanshyam Pandit had deposed that inspite of searching "for the same for 30 to 35 minutes, the currency note could not be found on the date of the incident i.e. 18.10.2003". Similarly, the panch witness - Bhanuprasad has deposed that "inspite of 1½ to 2 hours search, the currency note could not be found". Only, the other panch witness Fuljibhai has supported the prosecution. However, the said panch witness has deposed that the currency note was recovered immediately on 21.10.2003. Thus, there is gross variance in the testimonies of the aforesaid three Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue May 20 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 20 23:47:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/217/2007 ORDER DATED: 16/05/2025 undefined witnesses and therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the trap had succeeded and the tainted note was recovered. It is also seen from the depositions that both the accused persons have stated to have escaped the scene when the trap was set and therefore also, the prosecution case has failed in proving the guilt of the accused. There are numerous other discrepancies and faults with the prosecution case i.e. panch witness Bhanuprasad had categorically testified that he has been accompanied by the police constable from the ACB department and therefore such witness must be said to be tutored. In summation, the demand and acceptance has not been proved, inasmuch as, the accused persons have not been caught red handed and therefore, I am at one with the conclusion of the learned Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
5. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J) MAYA Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue May 20 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 20 23:47:43 IST 2025