Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajubha Natubha Jadeja on 24 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 08/04/2026
Pronounced On : 24/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1220 of 2008
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJUBHA NATUBHA JADEJA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DJ BHATT(164) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.01.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Junagadh, in Criminal Case No.1706 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(B), 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court is that on 10.12.1999, while he was performing his duties with "A" Division Police Station, Junagadh, at about 11:40 hours, he has received Yadi from control room stating the fact that as per information given by Dy. Director Shri Joshi, F.S.L., Junagadh, one person named Rajubha Ravubhai, Driver of the FSL has consumed Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined liquor without any pass or permit and he is not able to walk and / or talk. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid information, complainant has gone to the place of incident and seen that respondent accused was in drunken condition and he was not able to walk and / or talk properly. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the respondent- accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge- sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses and also produced 6 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:
Sr. Exhibit
Type of Evidence Description / Witness Name
No. No.
Deposition of the original complainant, 1 Oral Evidence 12 Dilipbhai Ravatbhai 2 Oral Evidence Oral deposition of Dinesh Anil 10 3 Oral Evidence Oral deposition of Dr. Makwana 17 Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined Sr. Exhibit Type of Evidence Description / Witness Name No. No. Deposition of Rameshbhai Prabhudas 4 Oral Evidence 24 Vyas Documentary 5 Panchnama 11 Evidence Documentary 6 F.I.R. (First Information Report) 13 Evidence Documentary 7 Form No.A 18 Evidence Documentary 8 Form No.C 19 Evidence Documentary 9 Form No.B. 20 Evidence Documentary 10 Police Yaadi 21 Evidence
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined
6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court :
8.1. While deciding the present appeal, this court has only taken into consideration the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Junagadh in Criminal Case No.1706 of 2000, in view of the fact that there was an office note that the entire file has been destroyed, therefore, only the judgment that has been passed, dated 31.01.2008, has been considered in this case.
8.2. The Magistrate Court has taken into consideration the fact that no panchnama of the body of the accused was taken at the FSL office where the accused was caught having consumed liquor. As per the judgment dated 30.01.2008, it has also come on record that, no panchnama was carried out at the FSL office, where the accused was working as a Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined driver and he was found to be in an intoxicated state. It also transpires that, the prosecution has failed to comply with the provisions of Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, in view of the fact that the report that was produced vide Exhibit-19, clearly states that the sample was sent to the FSL for investigation on 10.12.1999 and the same was received by a Register A.D. Post by FSL on 17.12.1999. In view of the said fact, the prosecution has not complied with the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, and the same has given effect as a result of the test has to be considered doubtful.
8.3. Moreover, the procedure followed by the medical officers to take the blood sample are also not as per the provisions of Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959. In view of the fact that the sample did not reach the testing officer within 7 days. Rule 4(2) of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, clearly states that, the sample blood collected shall be forwarded for test to the testing office either by post or by a special messenger, so as to reach him within a period of 7 days from the date of its collection and in the present case, in view of the fact that the sample were sent on 10.12.1999 and received on 17.12.1999, therefore in the Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined instant case, this mandatory provision has not been complied with and therefore the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)(B), 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 8.4. Moreover, in the present case, the accused was working in the FSL Department as a driver and the prosecution has not been able to prove that by a telephonically message, the officer of the FSL was called, the said fact has not been stated in the station diary. At the alleged premises where the accused was caught at the FSL office, no panchnama was done and while conducting the medical checkup Rule 4(2) of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959 have not been complied with.
9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.
10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93:
(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."
14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:
"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
17. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.
18. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 06:09:23 IST 2026