[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Narendrasinh Ranjitsinh Zala ... on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/125/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 125 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NARENDRASINH RANJITSINH ZALA CONSTABLE,CENTRAL
EXCISE,CLASS & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RAJENDRA K JOSHI(1589) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MS. DIMPLE J RAVAL(7124) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the Appellant - State and Mr. Rajendra K.
Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment
and order of acquittal dated 25.10.2012 passed by learned
Special Judge and 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in
Special A.C.B. Case No. 04 of 2009 whereby the Respondents
accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/125/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, the Appellant-State has preferred this
Appeal.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that as per the
information received by the complainant Shri P.M.Sarvaiya-
P.I, ACB Police Station, Bhavnagar, he called two panch
witnesses and informed them about the trap. To verify the
same, on 30.03.2007, at about 17:40 hours, one punter - P.W.
No. 2 along with panch witness no.1 - P.W. No. 3, were
traveling with a tractor containing one boat for sale, and as
they were passing through the Customs and Excise check post
of Alang Ship Breaking Yard at that time, the accused no.1
was present in the check post and asked the Punter to show
the bill and the Punter replied that, he does not have the bill.
Therefore, the accused no.1 demanded Rs.50/- and in the
presence of panch no.1, the Punter had given Rs.50/- to the
accused no.1 and the same was accepted by accused no.1.
Thereafter, on seeing the raiding party, the accused no.1 gave
the said Rs.50/- to the accused no.2, who was sitting in his
office, and the accused no.2 threw the said note from the
window. Thereby, the accused persons came to be tried for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/125/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. From the evidence on record, which I have been
exhaustively taken through by Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, particularly the deposition of
P. W. No. 1 - Pruthviraj Mahipatsinh Sarvaiya, who is the star
witness of the appellant and prosecution, it is clear that the
entire panchnama was carried out not on any specific
demand, but on a hunch/information that the accused was
accepting bribes, anything between the sum of Rs. 50/- to Rs.
500/-. It also bears out from the deposition that when the
raiding party reached the office of the accused, there was no
instance whatsoever of any spot demand of a bribe. As noted
earlier, there is no prior specific demand of any bribe made by
the accused in any case. It appears that a Rs. 50/- note was
handed over to the accused by P. W. No. 2 Kanubhai
Bhayabhai Gohil, whereupon the said note was thrown out of
the window when the raiding party had approached the
accused. In cross-examination, however, P.W. No. 1 has
categorically stated that when the Rs.50/- note was handed
over to the accused no. 2, neither P.W. No. 2 nor P.W. No. 3
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/125/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
was present in the said place.
5. In my opinion, such a deposition has to be held to be
fatal to the prosecution's case. This is inter alia what has been
held by the learned Special and 6 th Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhavnagar in Special (ACB) Case No. 04 of 2009. Therefore, I
find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the said finding
and/or the resultant acquittal of the respondent, respectfully
following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while dealing with appeals arising out of acquittal, as
noted in the decisions of the Hon'ble Court in case of Babu
Sahebgouda Rudragoudar and Others V/s. State of
Karnataka reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 and in case of
Mallappa and Other V/s. State of Karnataka reported in
(2024) 3 SCC 544. Therefore, the present appeal stands
dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. The bailable warrant issued by this Court on 16.07.2013
stands cancelled.
7. Registry is directed to return the Records and Proceedings to
the concerned Court.
(D.N.RAY,J)
VARSHA DESAI
