Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Vrajlal Jiva Gelani Barot on 14 August, 2025

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/1692/2012                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1692 of 2012


                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                        HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO                   Sd/-

                        ================================================================

                                          Approved for Reporting                        Yes              No
                                                                                                         √
                        ================================================================
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                               Versus
                                                    VRAJLAL JIVA GELANI BAROT
                        ================================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                        RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                        ================================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                                                         Date : 14/08/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State

under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the

order passed by the learned Special Judge and 2nd Additional

Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

Trial Court') in Special NDPS Case No. 09 of 2011 on 16.07.2012,

whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent -

accused from the offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter

referred to as 'the NDPS Act').

1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the

accused' as he stood in the rank and file 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. On 23.03.2011, the complainant, Rambhai

Vashrambhai Sagar, Unarmed ASI, Special Operation Group,

Jamnagar, received secret information that the accused was selling

cannabis at the entrance of Kalawad, opposite Khodiyar Hotel on

the plinth of Khatri Electronics, which was closed and the

complainant and other members of the Special Operation Group,

Jamnagar, raided the place and found the accused with 235 grams

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

of cannabis worth Rs.1410/- and Rs.130/- from the sale of the

cannabis and in all with muddamal of Rs.1530/-. The complainant,

Rambhai Vashrambhai Sagar, filed the complaint at the Jamnagar

City 'A' Division Police Station under Section 20(b) of the NDPS

Act, which came to be registered as Jamnagar City 'A' Division

Police Station, II-CR No.114 of 2011.

2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was

carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having

sufficient material against the accused, a chargesheet came to be

filed before the Court of Sessions and the same was registered as

Special NDPS Case No. 09 of 2011.

2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and

the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was

verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided

to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A

charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the

statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6, wherein, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire

evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution

examined 09 witnesses and produced 22 documentary evidence in

support of the case.

2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned

APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of

the Code were recorded. After hearing the arguments of the

learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after

perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the

impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused for the

offence.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the

appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that

the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the

learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and

principles of natural justice. The learned Trial Court has erred in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

evaluating the evidence on record of the case and without

appreciating the evidence in its real perspective. That there are

directed and indirect evidence connecting the respondents with

crime produced in this Court, in spite of the fact, the learned Trial

Court, without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence

on record of the case, straight way arrived at conclusion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence

of the complainant and other witnesses which has fully supported

the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has passed the

impugned judgment and order of acquittal is without giving any

cogent and convincing reasons, illegal, invalid and improper, and

therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.

4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant -

State. Though served, the respondent - accused has not appeared

either in-person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned

judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire

evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

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 learned Trial

Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the

prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and

has successfully proved the case against the accused but the

learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted

the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the

learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles

of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned

Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case

and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. Learned APP

has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned

judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for

the said offence and impose maximum sentence on the accused.

6. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against

acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that

no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned

Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or

perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the

Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the

Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of

acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of

innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of

acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of

administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are

possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution

i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is

in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court

has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court

should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate

Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only

when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is

clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to

conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

7. As per the settled principles of law in acquittal appeal,

the evidence of the prosecution on record is re-appreciated and

PW-1, Ajitsingh Bachubha Jadeja, examined at Exh.10 and PW-2,

Umedbhai Jayarambhai Nakum, examined at Exh.12, are the

panch witnesses of the panchnama produced at Exh.11, whereby,

Police Head Constable Dipakbhai Dharamshibhai Patel of the

Special Operation Group, Jamnagar produced the muddamal

before the PSO, Jamnagar City 'A' Division Police Station and a

panchnama was drawn, which is produced at Exh.11. Both the

witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have

been declared hostile.

7.1. PW-3, Ketan Hasmukhbhai Mangi, examined at

Exh.13, and PW-4, Navinbhai Raghavjibhai Nanda, examined at

Exh.15, are the panch witnesses of the panchnama, whereby, the

complainant and the other members of the raiding party went for

the raid and caught the accused red handed and the panchnama is

produced at Exh.14. As per the panchnama, the preliminary

panchnama was drawn, and thereafter, the entire procedure till

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

they reached the spot and caught the accused and called the

person with the weighing scales and the F.S.L. and the detailed

panchnama was drawn which is produced at Exh.14, but both the

panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution

and have been declared hostile.

7.2. PW-5, Rambhai Vashrambhai Sagar, examined at

Exh.17, is the complainant, who has narrated the entire procedure

that he had done right from receiving the secret information till

the accused was arrested. During the cross-examination by the

learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he

had received the information between 15:45 hours and 16:00

hours and he had informed the Superior Officer and he had given

the information in oral to Hadiya Saheb at 16:10 hours. They did

not send any dummy person to verify whether the accused was, in

fact, engaged in selling of cannabis and before searching the

accused, he did not give any information in writing to the accused

whether the accused wanted to be searched by a Magistrate or a

Gazetted Officer. Besides the complaint, he did not have any other

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

evidence to show that he had gone for the raid and no chillum or

any other instrument to consume cannabis was found from the

accused.

7.3. PW-6, Ranchhodbhai Amirbhai Hadiya, examined at

Exh.19, was also a member of the raiding party along with the

complainant and he has supported the case of the prosecution and

narrated in detail the steps that were undertaken by them. During

the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that they did not

send any dummy person to verify whether the accused was, in fact,

selling the cannabis and they did not give any information in

writing to the accused as to whether he wanted to be searched by a

Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. No instruments for

consumption of the cannabis was found from the accused.

7.4. PW-7, Navalsinh Kalubha Chawda, examined at

Exh.20 is the PSO of Jamnagar City "A' Division Police Station,

who has registered the complaint and has produced the extract of

the station diary at Exh.21.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

7.5. PW-8, Maheshbhai Mansukhlal Jadiya, examined at

Exh.22, is the person, who was called by the complainant to weigh

the muddamal, but the witness has not supported the case of the

prosecution and has stated that he does not know what was

weighed and he has never seen the accused.

7.6. PW-9, Naranbhai Karsanbhai Chanchiya, examined at

Exh.23, is the Investigating Officer, who has produced all the

necessary documents and has stated all the procedure undertaken

by him during investigation.

8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the

prosecution, it is on record that besides the complainant, PW-5,

Rambhai Vashrambhai Sagar and PW-6, Head Constable

Navalsinh Kalubha, no witnesses have supported the case of the

prosecution and there is nothing on record to show that, in fact,

the information was received by the complainant. The

complainant and PW-6 Head Constable Navalsinh Kalubha, have

clearly stated that before searching the accused, they did not give

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

any information to the accused in writing about whether he

wanted to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and

there is no document on record to show that such information

was received by the accused. Hence, it is a breach of the

mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Moreover,

no weighing scale was found from the possession of the accused

as per the case of the prosecution and there is no evidence on

record that the accused was, in fact, selling cannabis. Both the

complainant and the witness have stated that they did not send any

dummy person to verify whether the accused was, in fact, engaged

in selling cannabis and the panch witnesses have not supported the

case of the prosecution. PW-8 Maheshbhai Mansukhlal is the

independent witness, who had weighed the cannabis for the police

but he has too not supported the case of the prosecution. In the

entire evidence, there is no evidence on record to show that the

accused was, in fact, arrested with cannabis and as per the say of

the complainant, the information was sent to the Superior Officer

by the document produced at Exh.24, but there is nothing on

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

record to show what time was the information sent and at what

time it was received by the Superior Officer.

8.1. Even otherwise, the accused has been charged with the

offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and the quantity of

cannabis found in the possession of the accused was 235 grams,

which is a small quantity as upto 1000grams would be small

quantity and the commercial quantity is 20 kgs. Section 20(b) of

the NDPS Act reads as under:

"20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. --Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,--

                                 (a)      XXX XXX XXX
                                 (b)      produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports,

imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis,

shall be punishable,--

                                 (i)      XXX XXX XXX

                                 (ii)     where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),--

                                          (A)       and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment

for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;

As per the record of the case, the accused was arrested

on the day when the raid had taken place i.e. on 23.03.2011 and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1692/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

undefined

the accused was in custody till 16.07.2012 and was tried as an

under-trial prisoner and the accused has undergone almost 16

months of imprisonment.

9. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has

appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there

does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned

judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has

appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered

opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in

acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The

findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and

proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the

learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with

the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of

acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no