Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Parbatbhai Kanabhai Vadaliya on 4 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 21 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the YES
judgment ?
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 NO
interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PARBATBHAI KANABHAI VADALIYA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI (5624) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 04/06/2024
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 judgment and the order of acquittal in Special
(ACB) Case No.3 of 1995 passed by the learned 2 nd Fast
Track Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as 'the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
learned Trial Court') on 12.10.2007, whereby, the learned
Trial Court has acquitted the respondents - accused from
the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the P.C.Act'). The respondents are
hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' in the rank and file
as they stood in the original case, for the sake of
convenience, clarity and brevity..
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal
are as under:
2.1. That the accused No.1 - Parbatbhai Kanabhai Vadaliya
was working as Food Inspector and the accused No.2 -
Abdulbhai Rehmanbhai Osman was serving as helper in
the Office of Assistant Commissioner, Food and Ayurvedic
Controlling Department, Jungadh. That the complainant
Alkeshkumar Fulabhai Gundaniya was having a grocery
store namely "Pranam Provision Store" near Talav
Darwaja, Jungadh. On 10.08.1994 at about 11:30am, both
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
the accused came and told the complainant that they had
to take samples from his shop and during the conversation
regarding taking of the samples, the accused No.1
demanded an amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification
for taking samples of a standard company. That after
bargaining the amount of illegal gratification was settled at
Rs.400/- and as the complainant did not have the amount
with him, he told them that he would pay the amount after
2-3 days. That the complainant did not want to pay the
amount of illegal gratification and on 14.08.1994, went to
the ACB Police Station, Junagadh and gave a complaint
under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act,
which was registered at C.R.No.9 of 1994.
2.2. That the Trap Laying Officer called the panch witnesses
and the trap was arranged at the Panbidi Shop near the
corner of the society where the accused No.1 was residing
and at about 12:15pm, the accused No.1 came on his
motorcycle and told the complainant to give the amount of
illegal gratification to the accused No.2. That the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
complainant and the shadow witness went to the house of
the accused No.2 and gave the amount of Rs.400/- as
illegal gratification, which was accepted by him. That after
receiving the pre-determined signal, the members of the
raiding party came and caught the accused No.2 red
handed. That the Investigating Officer recorded the
statement of the connected witnesses and after the order of
sanction for prosecution was received a charge sheet was
filed before the learned Sessions Court, Junagadh, which
was registered as Special ACB Case No. 3 of 1995.
2.3. The accused were duly served with the summons and the
accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after
the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure was completed, a charge was framed
against the accused at Exh.13 and the statements of the
accused were recorded at Exh.14 and Exh.15 respectively,
wherein, the accused denied the allegations made in the
charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on
record. That after the entire evidence of the prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
was taken on record, the learned APP filed a closing pursis
at Exh.16 and the further statements of the accused under
section 313 of the Code were recorded, wherein, both the
accused denied all the evidence against them.
2.4. After the arguments of the learned APP and learned
advocate for the accused, the learned Trial Court acquitted
both the accused for all the offences by the impugned
judgement and order of acquittal dated 12.10.2007.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Trial Court on 12.10.2007, the appellant - State has filed
the present appeal mainly contending that the impugned
judgment and the order of acquittal is contrary to law and
the evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not
appreciated the oral evidence of 3 witnesses, who have
been examined by the prosecution before the learned Trial
Court and 23 documentary evidences, which have been
produced by the prosecution before the learned Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
Court in support of their case in true and proper
perspective. That the learned Trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence, which has fully supported the
case of the prosecution and has committed a grave error
apparent on record of the case and hence, the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal is illegal, invalid,
improper and the same deserves to be quashed and set
aside. That the complainant, in his evidence, has stated
that the amount of illegal gratification was demanded by
the accused No.1 for taking standard samples and the
accused No.2 has accepted the amount of illegal
gratification in the presence of the panch witness. That in
the complaint, the complainant has mentioned in detail the
entire conversation that had taken place and the demand
of illegal gratification is clearly made out from the
evidence on the record and there is no valid reason for the
learned Trial Court to come to a contrary conclusion. That
the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of demand,
acceptance and recovery of the amount as illegal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
gratification and as the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal is bad in law the same is required to be quashed
and set aside and the accused must be found guilty for all
the offences.
4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.C.M.Shah
for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. Ruturaj
Nanavati for the accused. Perused the impugned judgment
and the order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the
entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State has
taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by
the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the
demand of illegal gratification has been made out in the
complaint of the complainant and the panchnama has also
been proved by the panch witness though the panch
witness has been declared hostile. It is settled principle of
law that the entire evidence of the hostile witness must not
be discarded and during the cross-examination by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
learned APP, the panch witness has, upto to certain extent,
supported the case of the prosecution. That as the Trap
Laying Officer has expired, his deposition could not be
recorded before the learned Trial Court but PW-3
Bachubhai Nanubhai Kersariya, who was a member of the
raiding party and was throughout with the Trap laying
Officer, has narrated the entire procedure that had been
undertaken by the Trap Laying Officer and there is no
reason to doubt the deposition of this witness. That the
prosecution has successfully proved all the ingredients of
the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the
same by the accused No.2 and recovery of the tainted
currency notes from possession of the accused No.2 and
hence, the impugned judgment and order of the learned
Trial Court must be quashed and both the accused must be
convicted for the said offences.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Ruturaj Nanavati for the accused has
submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution, it has
come on record that the accused No.1 did not demand the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
amount of illegal gratification and in fact, it was the
complainant himself had tried to give the amount of illegal
gratification folded in the bill, which was to be given to the
accused as the bill was not submitted on the day when the
accused had taken the samples. That there is no iota of
evidence regarding the demand of illegal gratification by
the accused No.1 on the date when the samples were taken
or at a later date, at the time of the trap. That if the accused
No.1 had, in fact, demanded the amount of illegal
gratification at the time of the trap, when he met the
complainant, he himself would have accepted the amount
of illegal gratification and would not have told the
complainant to go and give it to the accused No.2. That
this itself shows that the bill was to be given and the
complainant has admitted that the tainted currency notes
were folded and placed in the bill, which was to be given
to the accused No.2 and the accused No.2 was not aware
about any currency notes which were placed in the bill.
That the panch witness, who is the independent witness,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the
prosecution and the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer
has not come on record. That PW-3 Bachubhai Nanubhai
Kersariya has not deposed about any demand that he has
heard and in absence of demand of illegal gratification by
the accused, the accused cannot be found guilty for the
said offences. That the learned Trial Court has rightly
appreciated all the evidence produced by the prosecution
in proper perspective and the learned Trial Court has, by a
well reasoned judgment and order of acquittal, rightly
acquitted the accused and hence, the appeal of the
appellant must be rejected.
6.1. Learned advocate for the accused has relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-
SC 70625 and the Apex Court has in Para - 88 observed as
under:
88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
88.1. (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.
88.2. (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.
88.3. (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.
88.4. (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 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 e 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 Sections
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (1) 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 Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii),
respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
of the Act, in order to bring home the offence,
there must be an offer which emanates from the
bribe-giver which 9 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 in turn there is a
payment made which is received by the public
servant, would be an offence of obtainment under
Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.5. (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.
88.6. (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.
88.7. (g) Insofar 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 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 Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of
the Act.
88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section
20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred
to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a
mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary
in nature."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
7. The law with regard to the interference of the Appellate
Court in acquittal appeals as observed by the Apex Court
in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Anr. Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal
No.1167 of 2018 and relevant Para-9, 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 than from the conviction of an
innocent. Appellate Court, while 9
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
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."
8. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal appeals,
it is essential to re-appreciate 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 PW-1 Alkeshkumar Fulabhai
Gundaniya at Exh.29 and this witness is the complainant,
who has produced the complaint at Exh.30. The witness
has stated that he is running a grocery store in the name of
"Pranam Provision Stores" in Junagadh and the accused
had come to his shop to take samples and at that time, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
accused No.1 had demanded the amount of illegal
gratification of Rs.400/-. That the said amount was to be
given after 2-3 days and as he did not want to give the said
amount, he had gone to the ACB Police Station and filed a
complaint on 14.08.1994. That he had given the Trap
Laying Officer four currency notes of the denomination of
Rs.100/- each and in the presence of the panch witness and
the complainant, the demonstration of anthracene powder
and ultraviolet lamp test was carried out and the trap was
arranged. That he and the shadow witness had gone to
Gangusar road near the house of the accused No.1 and at
that time, they found that the accused No.1 had gone
outside and waited for him at the Panbidi shop. That at
that time, the accused No. 1 came on a scooter from
Junagadh side and on the Gangusar road, the complainant
halted him and had a conversation with him and at that
time, the accused No.1 told the complainant that as he did
not have time, to give it to the accused No.2. That they did
not know where the accused No.2 was residing but they
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
found that his house was near the railway track and they
went to his house and the accused No.2 was at home and
the complainant, the panch witness and the accused No.2
went to a Panbidi shop to have pan. That at that time,
while they were returning after having pan, the
complainant gave the amount of illegal gratification with
his right hand to the accused No.2 and the accused No.2
accepted the same and the pre-determined signal was
given and the members of the raiding party came and
caught the accused No.2 red handed. That the bill and the
tainted currency notes were found from the accused No.2
and they went to the house of the accused No.1 and caught
him and came to the ACB office. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
complainant has stated that the bill had to be produced
while the samples were being taken and the bill was to be
given in 2-4 days. That he had gone to give the bill to the
accused No.1 and the accused No.1 told him to give the
bill to the accused No.2. That he had merely spoken about
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
the bill to the accused and there was no conversation about
any amount of the illegal gratification with the accused
No.1. That after the samples were taken, the accused No.1
did not demand any amount of illegal gratification and in
fact, he had spoken to his father and his friend that officers
had come to take samples at his shop and they had
advised that if he would file a complaint against them,
they would not come to his shop. That on the advise of his
friend, he had filed the complaint four days after the
samples were taken and Mavani Saheb had told that they
would arrange the trap against the accused No.2 and on
that day, when the samples were being taken at his shop,
the accused No.2 had gone to call the panch witnesses and
he had to give the bill to the accused but he did not have
the bill. That his friend had advised him that if he files the
complaint of demand of illegal gratification, no procedure
would be done regarding the samples and at the time of
filing the complaint, he knew that he had to give the bill
and he could give the bill along with the tainted currency
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
notes and with that reason, the trap was arranged. That no
conversation regarding any amount of illegal gratification
had taken place with to the accused and when he met the
accused, he had stated that the accused No.1 had told him
to give the bill and only the bill was demanded by the
accused No.2. That the tainted currency notes were folded
and placed inside the bill while the same was given to the
accused No.2.
8.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Dhirajlal Manjibhai
Dabhi at Exh.39 and this witness is the panch witness who
has stated that on 14.08.1992, he was called to the ACB
office along with the other panch witness Shyamlal
Pyarelal Kanojiya. The witness has stated that the
demonstration of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp
was done in his presence and thereafter, the trap was
arranged. That the other panch witness Shyamlal Pyarelal
Kanojiya and the complainant went to the house of the
accused No.1 and as the accused No.1 had gone out, they
had returned. That they all came back to the ACB office
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
and in the evening, they all went to Zanzarda Road and
halted the jeep and thereafter, the complainant and the
panch witnesses went to same house. That they returned
after some time and the Food Inspector and Ghemubha
also returned and thereafter, they went to the ACB office.
That they were shown the currency note of Rs.100/- and
the lamp was switched on and the currency note was
shown which was the same currency note. That he was
asked to affix the signature on some papers and he had
signed on those papers. That witness has not identified his
signature on the panchnama and as the witness has not
supported the case of the prosecution, he has been
declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by
the learned APP. During the cross-examination, he has not
fully supported the case of the prosecution and in the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has stated that the panchnama was being
dictated by the same officer and a person from the staff
was writing the same. That he stood outside when the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
panchnama was being written and he does not know what
instruction was given to the panch witness No.1 and the
complainant. That he was instructed to remain with the
other staff members and was supposed to come when the
pre-determined signal was given. That he does not know
what had taken place before the pre-determined signal
was given. That the complainant and the panch witness
No.1 had gone to the house of the accused and after the
signal was given, they all sat in the jeep and came to the
ACB office and all the procedure was done by the officer
and he stood outside during the entire procedure.
8.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Bachubhai Nanubhai
Kersariya at Exh.57 and this witness was working as an
ASI in the ACB office at Junagadh and at the time of trap,
the witness was the lamp operator and also a member of
the raiding party. The witness has supported the case of
the prosecution and has deposed all the events that had
occurred on 14.08.1994. The witness was the member of the
raiding party and he has stated that Police Inspector
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
Mavani Saheb arranged the trap and the witness was
along with him and thereafter, Police Inspector Mr.
Mavani Saheb had undertaken the investigation and had
filed a charge sheet. During the cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated
that when the complainant and the panch witness went to
the house of the accused No.1, they were standing far
away and when they returned, the complainant told them
that the accused was not at home. That while they were
going towards the jeep, the accused suddenly came and
from the place where they were standing, they could see
the complainant, the panch witness No.1 and the accused
No.1 but they could not hear their conversation. That the
explanation of the accused No.1 was noted in his presence
by the Police Inspector Mr. Mavani Saheb and at that time,
the accused No.1 has stated that he has not demanded any
amount of illegal gratification and he does not know
anything about the demand of illegal gratification. The
witness has further stated that he has not seen any give
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
and take of the currency notes between the complainant
the accused No.2.
9. On minutely dissecting the evidence of the prosecution on
record, it transpires that the accused No.1, who was
working as Food Inspector at the office of Assistant
Commissioner, Food and Ayurvedic Controlling
Department, Junagadh had gone with the accused No.2,
who was a helper to the shop of the complainant namely
"Pranam Provision Store" situated at Talav Darwaja,
Junagadh to take samples and the fact that the accused had
come to the shop of the complainant for collecting the
samples was not liked by the complainant. That the
complainant was advised by his friend that if he would file
a complaint against the accused in the ACB Police Station,
the officers would not come to his shop to take samples.
Accordingly, four days after the samples were taken, the
complainant has filed the complaint with the ACB Police
Station. That on the day when the accused had taken the
samples, there was no demand made from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
complainant. That at that time, the complainant had not
given the bill of the items, for which, the samples were
taken by the accused and on the pretext of giving the bill,
the complainant had gone at the time of the trap along
with the shadow witness. The complainant has
categorically stated that on the day of the trap, there was
no conversation, whatsoever, regarding any amount of
illegal gratification and the only conversation that had
taken place was regarding the bill that was to be given to
the accused. That the accused No.1 had refused to take the
bill and had told the complainant to give the bill of the
accused No.2 and thereafter, the complainant and the
shadow witness went to the house of the accused No.2 and
at that time also, the only conversation that had taken
place between the complainant and the accused No.2 was
with regard to the bill. In the entire evidence, the
prosecution has not been able to produce the evidence of
the shadow witness, who was present at the time of trap as
he had expired and the other witness PW-2 Dhirajlal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
Manjibhai Dabhi was a member of the raiding party and
was in the jeep along with the other staff members. That
the panch witness has completely turned hostile and has
not supported the case of the prosecution and in the entire
evidence, the ingredients of prior demand or demand is
not made out in the evidence of the prosecution. That from
the deposition of PW-3 Bachubhai Nanubhai Kersariya,
who was a member of the raiding party, it transpires that
the Trap Laying Officer, Police Inspector Mr. Mavani
Saheb had recorded the complaint in his presence and
thereafter, had arranged the trap and had undertaken the
entire investigation and had filed the charge sheet and this
itself casts the shadow of doubt on the credibility of the
case of the prosecution. It appears that the Police Inspector
Mr. Mavani Saheb has assumed all roles right from the
stage of recording the complaint, arranging the trap as
well as the panch witnesses and members of the raiding
party and carrying out the investigation till the filing of the
chargesheet. This action of the Police Inspector Mr. Mavani
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
Saheb is against the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence
and fair investigation and it casts a great doubt on the
credibility of the case of the prosecution. The investigating
officer could not be placed on any pedestal higher than of
a complainant, in whose, presence, the complaint has been
lodged and who has arranged the trap and the
complainant himself cannot be the sole agency of the
investigation. It is also a settled law that that there should
be no occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation.
The said view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
reported in AIR 1976 SC 985, followed by this Court in the
case of Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel vs State of Gujarat,
reported in 1998 (1) GLH 924 as well as in the case of
Gopal Lal Ghisulal Chhipa and others Vs The State of
Gujarat, reported in 1998 (1) GLH 943. That on this count,
the case of the prosecution suffers from infirmity and this
fact itself is sufficient to vitiate the whole investigation and
accordingly the whole proceedings based on such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
investigation deserves to be quashed. Even otherwise, the
Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer Mr.
Mavani Saheb have not been examined before the learned
Trial Court and the evidence of PW-3 Bachubhai Nanubhai
Kersariya is not much helpful to the prosecution as the
witness has categorically stated that he has not witnessed
any acceptance of the tainted currency notes and has not
heard the conversation between the complainant and the
accused and cannot say as to whether there was any
demand made by the accused.
10. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the evidence in
detail in the impugned judgment and the order and has
found that the prosecution has not proved the ingredients
of demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted
currency notes and in the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the case against the accused has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubts.
11. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the aspects of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
evidence of the prosecution and has concluded that there
is no reliable evidence to support the conviction of the
accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to
establish the charge against the accused. It is settled law
that unless the evidence is clear, cogent and reliable, no
conviction can be recorded and on re-appreciating the
entire evidence, the evidence is contrary and far from
convincing. As observed by the learned Apex Court in the
case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund (Supra), the scope
of the Appellate Court to interfere in the finding of
acquittal is limited and unless and until some perversity
and illegality is found in the judgment and order of the
learned Trial Court, the Appellate Court will interfere only
to ensure that no miscarriage of justice has occurred. In the
present case, there is no iota of evidence that any demand
for illegal gratification was made by the accused or that the
accused had accepted any amount of illegal gratification
and the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are
just and proper. This Court has perused the findings of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/21/2008 JUDGMENT DATED : 04/06/2024
undefined
learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has
appreciated the evidence and has in a well reasoned
judgment and order acquitted the accused and there is no
perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court. This Court is in complete agreement
with the findings, reasons, ultimate conclusion and the
resultant order of acquittal by the learned Trial Court.
12. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of
merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal in Special
(ACB) Case No.3 of 1995 passed by the learned 2 nd Fast
Track Judge, Junagadh on 12.10.2007 is hereby confirmed.
Bail bonds stand cancelled.
13. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI.....
