Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Narubhai Ratnabhai Ramani on 3 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution No
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NARUBHAI RATNABHAI RAMANI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 03/06/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1,
Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial
Court") in Special ACB Case No. 5 of 2004 on 31.08.2007,
whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 7,
13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short)
The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the
accused as they stood in the rank and file in the original
case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case
are as under:
2.1 That the accused no. 1 was working as a Talati Cum
Mantri of village Ingrodi, Taluka Lakhtar, District
Surendranagar and the complainant Haiderkhan Mojukhan
Malek had purchased land bearing survey no. 59/2 situated
in the outskirts of village Ingrodi from Mohbatkhan
Karimkhan and wanted to get his name mutated in the
revenue record. That the complainant Haiderkhan
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
Mojukhan Malek met the accused no. 1 and at that time the
accused no. 1 demanded an amount of Rs. 3000/- as illegal
gratification and after bargaining, the amount was settled at
Rs. 1000/-. That the accused no. 1 had told the
complainant - Haiderkhan Mojukhan Malek that he would
come on 29.07.2004 after 04.00 pm to the house of the
complainant and would give the 'Khedut Khatavahi Book'
and collect the amount of illegal gratification. That the
complainant did not want to pay the amount of illegal
gratification and hence, the complainant - Haiderkhan
Mojukhan Malek went to the ACB Police Station,
Surendranagar and filed a complaint under Sections 7, 12,
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act which was registered at C.R.
no. 4/2004 on 29.07.2004. That the Trap Laying Officer
called the panch witnesses and the demonstration of
phenolphthalein powder and the solution of sodium
carbonate was conducted in the presence of the panch
witnesses and the complainant and the characteristics of
phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate were
explained to them. That the trap was arranged and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
complainant gave two currency notes of the denomination of
Rs. 500/- each to the Trap Laying Officer and both the
currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder
and placed in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant.
That the shadow witness and the complainant went to the
house of the complainant and waited for the accused and at
that time both the accused came to the house of the
complainant. That the accused no. 1 demanded the amount
of illegal gratification and the complainant took the tainted
currency notes with his right hand from the left side shirt
pocket and gave it to the accused no. 1 who accepted the
tainted currency notes and returned one currency note to
the complainant stating that he was giving the amount to
his daughter and gave the other currency notes to the
accused no. 2 who put it in his pant pocket. That the
complainant, thereafter, gave the predetermined signal and
the members of the raiding party came and caught both the
accused red handed and the tainted currency notes were
recovered. That the necessary panchnamas were drawn and
the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
connected witnesses and after the order of sanction for
prosecution was received, a charge-sheet was filed before
the Sessions Court, Surendranagar which came to be
registered as Special ACB Case No. 5/2004.
2.2 The accused were duly served with the summons and
both the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court,
and after the procedure under Section 207 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure was followed, a charge at Exh. 9 was
framed against both the accused and the statements of the
accused were recorded at Exhs. 10 and 11 respectively,
wherein, the accused have denied all the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record.
2.3 The prosecution has produced the following oral
evidences in support of their case.
Sr. No. PW Particulars Exh.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
Vaghela
2.4 The prosecution has produced the following
documentary evidences in support of their case.
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
59/2 of village Ingrodi
59/2 of village Ingrodi
2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis at Exh.
57, the further statement of the accused under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded and after
the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate
for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by an
judgement and order dated 31.08.2007 was pleased to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
acquit both the accused from all the offences.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has
filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned
judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial
Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and the learned
Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence produced by
the prosecution properly. That the Trap Laying Officer and
other witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution
and the prosecution has, by oral and documentary
evidences, proved that the accused had demanded for the
amount of illegal gratification and had accepted the same
and had thereafter, returned one currency note of Rs. 500/-
to the complainant and had given the other currency note of
Rs. 500/- to the accused no. 2 from whose custody it was
recovered. That the factum of demand is clearly made out
and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the
defence of the accused is not supported by any cogent
evidence and the accused have not discharged their burden
to establish the defence. That the impugned judgement and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
order of acquittal is illegal, unjust, and irrelevant and the
learned Trial Court has grossly erred in concluding that the
demand of illegal gratification was not proved beyond
reasonable doubts. That the impugned judgement and order
of acquittal must be quashed and set aside and as the
prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand,
acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubts, the
accused must be found guilty for the offences and
sentenced accordingly.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant -
State and learned advocate Mr. Viral Vyas for learned
advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the respondents. Perused the
impugned judgement and order and entire evidence of
prosecution on record.
5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution in detail and
has stated that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated
the evidence in proper perspective. That the factum of
demand is clearly established and the tainted currency
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
notes have been recovered from the custody of the accused
no. 2 and the accused no. 1 who was the Talati Cum Mantri
of Ingrodi village had demanded for the amount of illegal
gratification to mutate the name of the complainant in the
revenue record. That this fact is clearly proved from the
evidence of the complainant and the panch witness who was
an independent witness was present at the time when the
demand of illegal gratification was made by the accused no.
1. That the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of
demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable
doubts and the learned APP has urged this Court to
quashed and set aside the impugned judgement and order
of acquittal and convict the accused.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Viral Vyas for learned advocate
Mr. Ashish Dagli for the accused has submitted that the
learned Trial Court has properly appreciated all the
evidences and has rightly acquitted both the accused as
there is no iota of evidence regarding demand of any illegal
gratification or acceptance by the accused and the learned
Trial Court, in a well reasoned judgement, has discussed all
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
the evidences and has rightly acquitted the accused and
hence, the appeal must be rejected.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ballu @ Balram @
Balmukund & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal
Appeal No. 1167 of 2018, in para 9, has observed as under:
9....... The law with regard to interference by the Appellate
Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of
acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference
with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a
catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two
judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in
the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below:
"13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P.
(2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:-
In an appeal against acquittal where the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused
is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere
with the order of acquittal only when there is
perversity of fact and !aw. However, we believe that
the paramount consideration of the Court is to do
substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice
which can arise by acquitting the accused who is
guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that
may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate
Court, while enunciating the principles with
regard to the scope of powers of the appellate
Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no
absolute restriction in law to review and relook the
entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is
founded."
14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of
Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665, the Supreme Court has
held that:-
"No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on
record, two views are possible, and the trial court
has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court
should not interfere with the same. However, this
does not mean that in all the cases where the trial
court has recorded acquittal, the same should not
be interfered with, even if the view is perverse.
Where the view taken by the trial court is against
the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is
always open far the appellate court to express the
right conclusion after reappreciating the evidence
If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt
on record, and convict the accused."
7.1 In the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of
Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
by a public servant as a fact in issue by the
prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish
the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections
7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal
gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a
matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either
by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral
evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can
also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the
absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
public servant, the following aspects have to be borne
in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver
without there being any demand from the
public servant and the latter simply accepts the
offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act.
In such a case, there need not be a prior
demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes
a demand and the bribe giver accepts the
demand and tenders the demanded gratification
which in turn is received by the public servant,
it is a case of obtainment. In the case of
obtainment, the prior demand for illegal
gratification emanates from the public servant.
This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by
the bribe giver and the demand by the public
servant respectively have to be proved by the
prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words,
mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal
gratification without anything more would not
make it an offence under Section 7 or Section
13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order
to bring home the offence, there must be an
offer which emanates from the bribe giver which
is accepted by the public servant which would
make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by
the public servant when accepted by the bribe
giver and inturn there is a payment made which
is received by the public servant, would be an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d)
and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand
and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal
gratification may be made by a court of law by way of
an inference only when the foundational facts have
been proved by relevant oral and documentary
evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis
of the material on record, the Court has the
discretion to raise a presumption of fact while
considering whether the fact of demand has been
proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a
presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the
accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption
stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has
died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during
trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by
letting in the evidence of any other witness who can
again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary
evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by
circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor
does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused
public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the
proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the
court to raise a presumption that the illegal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
gratification was for the purpose of a motive or
reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said
presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal
presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the
said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section
20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of
the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section
20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact
referred to above in point (e) as the former is a
mandatory presumption while the latter is
discretionary in nature."
8. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal
appeals, it is essential to reappreciate the evidence
produced by the prosecution on record before the learned
Trial Court and to bring home the charge against the
accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 - Haiderkhan
Mojukhan Malek at Exh. 22 who is the complainant and he
has stated that he had purchased agricultural land situated
in outskirts of Ingrodi village from Mohbatkhan Karimkhan
for Rs. 2,30,000/- and his name was not mutated in the
revenue record. That he had met the accused no. 1 who had
demanded for the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
3000/- and after bargaining, the amount was settled at Rs.
1000/-. That he did not want to pay the amount and hence,
he went to the ACB Office and met Dave Saheb and Dave
Saheb told him to come on the next day with two currency
notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each. That on the
next day, he went and gave the two currency notes to Dave
Saheb and Dave Saheb applied powder on the currency
notes and gave them to him and told him to go and to call
him on the telephone when they come. That he went him
and gave the currency notes to the accused no. 1 who
returned one currency note to him and when the
complainant went out to call Dave Saheb, the accused no. 1
had a doubt and put the currency notes in the behind pant
pocket of the accused no. 2. That the accused no. 2 told the
accused no. 1 not to put the currency note in his pocket
and returned it to the accused no. 1 but once again the
accused no. 1 put the currency note in the pocket of the
accused no. 2 and at that time, Dave Saheb came and
caught them. The witness has not supported the case of
prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
cross-examined at length by the learned APP, wherein, the
witness has not fully supported the case of prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that the entry of the
land was in the book and when the accused came to his
house, the entry of mortgage was made in the land. That the
seller of the land had taken a loan from the bank on the
land and the same was entered in the village form no. 7/12.
That the accused no. 1 had told the him that his name
could not be mutated in the record till the loan was cleared
and he had a doubt that the accused no. 1 had given the
loan to the seller of the land. That after the complaint was
filed, the seller of the land paid the loan and the land was
free from all encumbrances. That he had told the accused
no. 1 to get his name mutated in the revenue record even
though the loan was taken on the land and he had a verbal
altercation with the accused no. 1 regarding the same. That
when the accused came to his house and he was giving the
amount to the accused no. 1, he had stated that he has not
demanded for any amount from him and at that time,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
Anwarkhan was present.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Rajeshbhai
Baldevbhai Lakhtariya at Exh. 31 and this witness is the
panch witness who had gone to the ACB Office along with
the other panch witness - Baldevbhai Raghavjibhai
Dalsaniya. The witness has supported the case of
prosecution and has narrated details of all the events that
had occurred when he and other panch witness -
Baldevbhai Raghavjibhai Dalsaniya went to the ACB Office
and the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and
sodium carbonate was done in their presence and
thereafter, the two currency notes of denomination of Rs.
500/- each were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and
placed in the left shirt pocket of the complainant. That the
witness had gone as a shadow witness along with the
complainant to the house of the complainant and has stated
that when they reached the house of the complainant, both
the accused came and the complainant took the tainted
currency notes with his right hand from his left side shirt
pocket and gave it to the accused no. 1 who accepted both
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
the currency notes and returned one currency note to the
complainant stating that he was giving it for his daughter
and the complainant took the currency note and placed it in
left side shirt pocket. That the other currency note was held
by the accused no. 1 in his left hand and the accused no. 1
gave the currency note to the accused no. 2 who placed it in
his pant pocket. That the complainant stated that he was
going out to bring a cigarette and went out and gave the
predetermined signal and the panch no. 2 and members of
raiding party came and caught the accused. The witness
has also stated that at that time another person had also
come and his presence is also noted. The witness has stated
that the panchnama was written at the house of the
complainant by the writer of the Police Inspector. During
the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that his statement was
recorded on the basis of the panchnama and he does not
recollect as to who had dictated the panchnama but he or
the other panch witness has not dictated the panchnama.
That one another person had come who had a beard and at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
that time there was no conversation about demand of any
amount. That in the presence of the bearded person, a
conversation for money took place and at that time, the
accused no. 1 had refused to take any amount. That the
complainant did not say anything before giving the amount
to the accused no. 1 and at that time, the witness had
found that no demand was made by the accused no. 1.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Baldevbhai
Raghavjibhai Dalsaniya at Exh. 36 and this witness is the
panch witness who had accompanied PW2 - Rajeshbhai
Baldevbhai Lakhtariya to the office of the ACB on the date of
the trap. The witness was the member of the raiding party
and had gone to the house of the complainant after the
predetermined signal was given and has fully supported the
case of prosecution. During the cross-examination, the
witness has stated that he had not dictated the panchnama
and the panch no. 1 had also not dictated the panchnama.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Baldevbhai
Lakhmanbhai Dangar at Exh. 42 and the witness has stated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
that on 29.07.2004, he had gone to the house of his friend
Haiderbhai and at that time, Jivanbhai and two other
persons were sitting. That some policeman had come but no
procedure was undertaken in his presence and in his
presence, no amount of illegal gratification was demanded
or accepted. That he had not seen any exchange of money in
his presence. That witness has not identified the accused
and has not supported the case of prosecution and has
been declared hostile. During the cross-examination by the
learned APP, the witness has not supported the case of
prosecution.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Anwarkhan
Lakhaji Malek at Exh. 47 and this witness has stated that
he knows the accused no. 1 and he had taken the accused
no. 1 from Lakhtar to Surendranagar and at that time, they
met Jivanbhai who was known to both of them. That
Jivanbhai was a friend of Haiderbhai and the accused no. 1
had told them that he wanted to go to the house of
Haiderbhai and hence, he, Jivanbhai and the accused no. 1
went to the house of the complainant. That the accused no.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
1 gave the book to the complainant and at that time the
complainant forcibly gave Rs. 1000/- which were two
currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- each to the
accused no. 1 but the accused no. 1 refused to take the
amount and gave Rs. 500/- back to the complainant and
gave the other currency note of Rs. 500/- to Jivanbhai. That
three to four police personnel had come and the police were
from Bhuj, Rajkot and Surendranagar. The witness has not
supported the case of prosecution and has been declared
hostile and has been cross-examined by the learned APP.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that while the
complainant was giving the amount of Rs. 1000/- to the
accused no. 1, the accused no. 1 has stated that he had not
demanded for the amount and had refused to take the
amount but the complainant had forcibly' given the amount
to the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 1 returned one
currency note of Rs. 500/- to the complainant and gave the
other currency note of Rs. 500/- to the accused no. 2. The
witness has stated that the accused no. 1 did not demand
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
for any amount from the complainant in his presence.
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Kiritsinh
Bapalsinh Zala at Exh. 48 and the witness is the Trap
Laying Officer who has fully supported the case of
prosecution. The witness has narrated all the events that
had unfolded from the time that the complainant came to
the office and he had recorded the complaint of the
complainant and had thereafter, arranged for the trap and
till the time the trap was successful. During the cross-
examination the witness had stated that he was dictating
the panchnama and he had instructed the complainant to
give the amount of illegal gratification only if the same was
demanded by the accused. That there was no complaint
against the accused no. 2 and the accused no. 1 had
returned one currency note of Rs. 500/- to the complainant
and gave the other currency note of Rs. 500/- to the
accused no. 2. That even the witness Anwarkhan who was
present at that time has stated that the accused no. 1 had
refused to take any amount.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Rajendrasinh
Ghanshyamsinh Vaghela at Exh. 49 and this witness is the
Investigating Officer who had taken over the investigation
from Police Inspector - Mr. K.B. Zala and had thereafter,
investigated the offence and recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and sent the muddamaal to the FSL.
That after the order of sanction for prosecution was
received, the charge-sheet was filed against both the
accused. The witness, in his cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, stated that the statement
of Anwarkhan was in the papers and the explanation of the
accused was also in the papers but he had not sent the
same to the Competent Authority for the order of sanction
for prosecution.
9. On meticulous appreciation and dissection of the
entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the
prosecution before the learned Trial Court, there is no iota
of evidence regarding any prior demand or demand at the
time of the trap made by the accused no. 1. As per the case
of prosecution, at the time of the trap, independent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
witnesses Baldevbhai Lakhmanbhai Dangar and
Anwarkhan Lakhaji Malek were present but both the
witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the
case of prosecution and have not stated that the accused
had made any demand for any amount of illegal gratification
from the complainant. In fact, the evidence that comes on
record is that the complainant had forcibly tried to give the
amount of Rs. 1000/- to the accused no. 1, even though the
accused no. 1 had refused to take any amount and
thereafter, the accused no. 1 had returned one currency
note of denomination of Rs. 500/- to the complainant and
gave the other currency note of denomination of Rs. 500/-
to the accused no. 2. That if the accused no. 1 had made
any prior demand of any amount of illegal gratification, the
accused no. 1 would have taken the amount and placed it in
his pocket but as per the case of prosecution, he did not do
so. The complainant has not supported the case of
prosecution and has been declared hostile and the factum of
prior demand and demand at the time of the trap has not
been proved on record beyond reasonable doubts. In the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
evidence it is on record that the panchnama was written by
the Trap Laying Officer and the panchnama was not written
by the panch witnesses. That in the entire evidence, the
accused no. 2 had absolutely no role to play and in the
evidence it is on record that the complainant had forcibly
tried to give the amount to the accused no. 1 who had
simply handed over the currency note of Rs. 500/- to the
accused no. 2. There is no iota of evidence regarding the role
of the accused no. 2 in the entire evidence and it is not the
case of the prosecution that the accused no. 2 had accepted
the amount of illegal gratification on behalf of the accused
no. 1.
10. As discussed above, after meticulously dissection of
the evidence of the prosecution as also considering the
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ballu @ Balram @
Balmukund (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion
that the judgement and order passed by the learned Trial
Court is with proper reasons and the learned Trial Court is
fully justified in acquitting both the accused from all the
charges levelled against them. This Court does not find any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/765/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/06/2024
undefined
illegality, perversity or infirmity in the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court and is in complete agreement with
the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of
acquittal.
11. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgement and order and the present appeal is
devoid of merits and resultantly the same is dismissed. The
impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1,
Surendranagar in Special ACB Case No. 5 of 2004 on
31.08.2007 is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
