Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Gulabbhai Ravjibhai Patel on 2 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1186 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GULABBHAI RAVJIBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JAVERI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NAYAN D. PAREKH(5010) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 02/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State
under Section-378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
challenging the judgment and order dated 31/12/2007 passed
by learned Special Judge, 2 nd Fast Track Court, Valsad
(hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Special
Corruption Case No.6 of 2004. By way of the impugned
judgment and order, the accused has been acquitted of all the
charges levelled against him under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as "Corruption Act").
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
2. The short facts emerging from the record are read as under:-
2.1 It is the case of complainant - Pradipkumar Narendrasingh,
who was doing business of scrap (old newspaper) in the area
known as Dungari Faliya at Siddharth Nagar GIDC, Vapi
which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Vapi Town
Police Station, whereas, accused namely Gulabbhai Ravjibhai
Patel was serving as a police constable at Vapi G.I.D.C. Police
Station and was also worked as D-Staff member of the police
came to his shop and allegedly demanded a sum of
Rs.15,000/- from complainant otherwise threatened to
implicate him in a false criminal case of dealing in theft
goods. Such demand was made by the accused on
17/05/2004, when he visited the shop of complainant.
2.2 As complainant did not want to pay such bribe to the
accused, he had approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau
Office situated at Valsad and contacted Police Inspector
Mr.M.B.Koralvala, to whom he gave his complaint. Once, the
complaint came to be registered by concerned Inspector, he
has called witnesses and after completing all procedural
formalities, informed the complainant and witnesses about
how to pay amount of bribe to the accused by calling him at
Decent Restaurant. Once the accused accepted the money, a
signal was to be given to the raiding party. The currency
notes which were to be used to be given to the accused were
sprinkled with phenolphthalein powder.
2.3 As decided, a raid was conducted at Decent Hotel, Vapi,
wherein, the accused having demanded and accepted
Rs.15,000/- from the complainant, was caught red-handed.
After completing procedural formalities, he was arrested for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
alleged offence made under the Corruption Act.
2.4 Further, on completion of investigation, after getting sanction
from competent authority of department concern wherein
accused was working, the charge-sheet came to be filed
against accused for alleged offence of demanding and
accepting bribe thereby, Special Case was registered with
Trial Court.
2.5 The Special Court has framed charge (Exh.24) against
accused under Sections-7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of Corruption
Act.
3. The prosecution led following oral and documentary evidence
in support of it's case and to bring home the charges against
accused.
Oral Evidences of Prosecution
Sr. Name and Particulars Exh.
No.
Documentary Evidences
Sr. Document Particulars Exh.
No.
3. Panchnama of the Physical Condition of the 34
Accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
5. Letter of Superintendent of Police, Valsad 41
person
4. After completion of trial, the Trial Court has found that the
evidence led by prosecution are not self-sufficient to prove
the guilt of the accused for committing such crime, thereby,
it has acquitted accused from such charges levelled against
him.
5. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Jirga
Javeri for the State at length. Learned APP has taken me
through various oral as well as documentary evidence, which
are on record of the case. I have also independently examined
and re-appreciated evidence of witnesses examined by
prosecution.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.Jirga Javeri would
submit that the findings of acquittal are contrary to law and
evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial
Court are erroneous and based on irrelevant material.
6.1 Learned APP would submit that the prosecution has
successfully established on record that accused has
demanded and accepted Rs.15,000/- from complainant,
thereby, proved the ingredients of Section-7 read with
Section-13 of Corruption Act.
6.2 Learned APP would submit that Trial Court has erroneously
observed that accused has not demanded bribe from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
complainant and erroneously came to the conclusion that
prosecution has failed to prove charges beyond doubt.
6.3 Learned APP would submit that prosecution has satisfactorily
proved all charges levelled against accused, thereby, accused
was required to be convicted for committing the serious
offence of demanding and accepting a bribe while being a
public servant.
6.4 Learned APP would further submit that, as per the oral
evidence led by the prosecution, including that of the
complainant, it is self-sufficient to establish that the accused
not only demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000/-, but in fact
accepted the same, which was recovered by the raiding party
in the presence of panchas. It is submitted that once all three
ingredients i.e., demand, acceptance, and recovery of the
bribe amount, were successfully proved by the prosecution,
there was no justification for the Trial Court to acquit the
accused from such serious charges levelled against him.
6.5 Learned APP would further submit that the Trial Court has
erroneously and perversely observed that there was no
reason for accused to demand money from complainant, as
the accused was a police constable working in Vapi G.I.D.C.
Police Station, whereas the complainant was doing business
of scrap of newspaper in Dungari Faliya area, which falls
under Vapi Police Station. It is respectfully submitted that
once the complainant and other witnesses, examined during
the course of trial, would categorically admitted that accused
had, in fact, demanded and received money from the
complainant, which was recovered from him, the charges
levelled against accused has been duly proved for which he
was required to be convicted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
6.6 Learned APP would submit that merely because the
sanctioning authority has signed in English while giving
sanction to prosecute for serious crime of demanding and
accepting bribe, no legal presumption could have been drawn
against sanctioning authority that he has signed it without
verifying contents of draft of sanction letter dated 17/08/2004
(Exh.43).
6.7 Learned APP would submit that the Trial Court has
erroneously observed that the sanctioning authority may not
be aware about Gujarati Language and thereby committed a
grave error in law by observing that sanction was vitiated
and granted without application of mind.
6.8 Thus, learned APP would submit that impugned judgment and
order is erroneous, perverse, arbitrary and requires to be
interference by this Court and accused may be convicted for
the charges levelled against him.
6.9 Thus, the learned Trial Court has wrongly recorded the order
of acquittal, which deserves to be quashed and appropriate
sentences for the offences be passed against all the accused
and he urged this Court to allow the captioned appeal.
7. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, I would
first like to remind myself the position of law propounded by
Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it
has laid down several criteria while deciding acquittal appeal
especially in Anti-Corruption cases.
8. It would be apt to refer and rely upon the decision of the
Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of
India in a case of refer and rely upon the decision of Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
Supreme Court of India in the case of Mallappa and Ors.
V/s. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544,
wherein scope of acquittal is succinctly discussed and
elaborated held thus:-
"24. We may firstly discuss the position of law regarding the
scope of intervention in a criminal appeal. For, that is the foundation
of this challenge. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence
that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused,
unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the
trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in
acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the
case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on
appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was
not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold
is expected to rebut the same in appeal."
"25. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no
quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of
appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-
appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of
the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified power,
especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first
and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court
thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due
consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for
consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or
affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is
whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A
decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere
difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity."
"26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal
case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The 'two-views theory' has
been judicially recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when
the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views.
However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused.
For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of
the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of
innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the
one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of
action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial
Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the
High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence. If
such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible
to settle the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. In Selvaraj v.
State of Karnataka, 2015 10 SCC 230
"13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and on appraisal
of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial
court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not have
interfered with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M.
Seshadri v. State of T.N., 2002 9 SCC 639 has laid down that as the
appreciation of evidence made by the trial court while recording the
acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to interfere in
appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the acquittal has
been dealt with by this Court, thus:
"9. We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing
with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various
grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those
grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with
appeal against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. If
the appreciation of evidence by the trial court did not suffer from any
flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned
judgment, the order of acquittal could not have been set aside. The
view taken by the learned trial court was a reasonable view and even
if by any stretch of imagination, it could be said that another view
was possible, that was not a ground sound enough to set aside an
order of acquittal.""
(emphasis supplied)
In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., 2022 6 SCC 294 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court analyzed the relevant decisions and summarized the approach
of the appellate Court while deciding an appeal from the order of
acquittal. It observed thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
"7. It is well settled that:
7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons
which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting the accused
must be dealt with, in case the appellate court is of the view that the
acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned (see
Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, 2019 5 SCC 436 Anwar Ali
v. State of H.P., 2020 10 SCC 166)
7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal
presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (see
Atley v. State of U.P., 1955 AIR(SC) 807)
7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the
appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal
against acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, 1998 5 SCC
412)"
(emphasis supplied)
9. Thus, it is now a well-settled legal position of law that a heavy
burden is cast upon the prosecution to prove that the accused
has demanded and accepted the bribe, and the same would
have to be recovered from accused. In a case where any of
these ingredients are missing, the charges levelled against
accused under Section-7 read with Section-13 would not be
attracted.
10. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid principle laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, first it is required to be
considered as to whether the any serious error of law
committed by Trial Court while acquitting accused and or
reasons so assigned by Trial Court are perverse, erroneous or
fallible whereby interference requires in the impugned
judgement?
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
11. First of all, I would like to touch upon the aspect of validity of
sanction order issued by the authority as it goes to the root of
the case. It has been observed by Trial Court in its impugned
judgement that sanctioning authority at two places while
giving sanction vide its letter dated 17/08/2004 (Ex.43),
written his name in English and so also signed in English. So,
observed that it is reasoned to believe that sanctioning
authority might have given sanction to prosecute the accused
without being aware about gujarati language. It has been
further observed by Trial Court that prosecution has not
examined the sanctioning authority to clarify the said aspect
of the case, thereby sanction which has been given by
authority is vitiated being granted without proper application
of mind.
12. To appreciate the above observation made by the Trial Court,
this Court has also re-appreciated such evidence came on
record i.e. Sanction Letter dated 17/08/2004. The sanctioning
authority, while writing his name in said letter while filling
the blanks written his name in English and so also signed in
English at end of such letter. From the name of sanctioning
authority i.e. V. Chandrasekhar, it appears that he would not
be hailing from State of Gujarat, thereby, it was reasoned to
believe that he might not be conversant with Gujarati
language, but such a presumption was rebuttable. The
burden was upon prosecution to discharge such presumption
which appears to have not been discharged.
12.1 Furthermore, reading on top of letter dated 17/08/2004
(Ex.43) signed by sanctioning authority would indicate that it
was draft to be sanctioned/approved by the authority and not
sanction order prepared by sanctioning authority himself.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
Albeit, once such draft letter signed and issued by the
concern authority, same be treated as sanction order. But at
the same time, it give reasonable suspicion in prudent mind
as to whether sanctioning authority has reached to his final
conclusion by proper application of mind while granting
sanction after examined all documents collected by
investigating agency and so also able to understood its
content properly especially when doubt creates about
sanctioning authority actually possessing knowledge of local
language or not.
12.2 These are serious concern needs to be addressed and could
have been taken care of by prosecution during course of trial
in light of the fact that requisite sanction in corruption cases
is sine qua non to proceed against accused who happens to
be public servant to hold a trial against him and in fact
mandatory requirement as per S. 19 of Corruption Act.
12.3 It is by now well settled legal position of law that grant of
sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise
but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to
Government Servants against frivolous prosecutions. It is to
be proved beyond any suspicion that sanctioning authority
has gone through each and every materials connected with
commission of crime and after fully satisfied itself accord its
sanction.
12.4 At this juncture, it would be apposite to prefer and rely upon
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case of State
of Maharashtra v/s Mahesh G Jain reported in (2013) 8
SCC 119, wherein after revisiting law on the issue germen in
present appeal held thus:-
"[5] Section 19(1) of the Act postulates that no court shall take
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13
and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant except
with the previous sanction. The said provision enumerates about the
competent authorities. In the case at hand, the competence of the
authority who has granted sanction is not in question. The only
aspect that is required to be scrutinized whether the order granting
sanction is valid in law.
[6] Grant of sanction is irrefragably a sacrosanct act and is intended
to provide safeguard to public servant against frivolous and
vexatious litigations. Satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is
essential to validate an order granting sanction.
[7] This Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1958 AIR(SC) 124
was considering the validity and effect of the sanction given under
Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After referring
to the decisions in Basdeo Agarwala v. Emperor, 1945 AIR(FC) 18 and
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King, 1948 AIR(PC) 82.....
[8] In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1979 AIR(SC)
677 this Court lucidly registered the view that it is incumbent on the
prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the
sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction
has been made out constituting an offence and the same should be
done in two ways; either (i) by producing the original sanction which
itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of
satisfaction and (ii) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts
placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived
at by it. It is well settled that any case instituted without a
proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest
defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are
rendered void ab initio.
[10] In C.S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2005 4 SCC 81 it
has been held as follows: -
"...sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts
do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence
that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning
authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is
apparent by reading the order."
[12] In State of Karnata v. Ameerjan, 2007 11 SCC 273 it has been
opined that an order of sanction should not be construed in a
pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for
which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be
borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best
person to judge as to whether the public servant concerned should
receive the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction
for his prosecution or not.
[13] In Kootha Perumal v. State through Inspector of Police, Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption, 2011 1 SCC 491 it has been opined that the
sanctioning authority when grants sanction on an examination of the
statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, it can
safely be concluded that the sanctioning authority has duly recorded
its satisfaction and, therefore, the sanction order is valid.
[14] From the aforesaid authorities the following principles
can be culled out: -
14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid
sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being
satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2 The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning
authority has perused the material placed before him and, after
consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for
prosecution.
14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that
the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his
satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before
him.
14.4 Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the
sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction
that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5 The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning
authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal
over the sanction order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
14.6 If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials
placed before him and some of them have not been proved that
would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7 The order of sanction is a pre-requisite as it is intended to
provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious
litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be
construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper-
technical approach to test its validity."
(emphasis supplied)
12.5 Thus, in light of the aforesaid peculiar facts and
circumstances of present case, ratio of aforesaid decisions
and coupled with a fact that a view taken by Trial Court in
relation to none application of mind on part of sanctioning
authority while according sanction may be plausible view
which can not be interfered by this Court while hearing
Acquittal appeal filed at the instance of State. Having so
reached to this conclusion, once sanction granted by the
authority in light of said peculiar facts and circumstances
vitiated, whereby the accused cannot be held guilty even
though the other ingredients of Section-7 read with Section-
13 of Corruption Act might have been established.
13. Apart from said aspect of the case, even after reappreciating
and scanning entire evidence on record, it emerges that story
put forward by complainant in his evidence is highly doubtful
and improbable as accused had no authority of investigation
as he was arm constable having duty of guard/watchmen in
GIDC which has come on record by clinching evidence
thereby, it has reason to believe that complainant doing
business of scrap would have readily agreed to pay Rs.
15,000/ to a police constable having no authority to falsely
implicate complainant in any offence. Further, alleged threat
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
given by accused to complainant on 17/05/2004 and sought
for bribe then complainant could have easily reported the
complaint to higher up of accused which was not done by him
having so admitted in his cross-examination. Moreover, bribe
money arranged by complainant from getting it from others
which would ordinarily person would not like to do it. The
prosecution has not examined any other independent witness
available at Decent Hotel and from staff of complainant
present on 17/05/2004 when for first time accused allegedly
visited shop of complainant. It is a specific case of defence
and in fact stated by accused in statement recorded u/s 313
of Cr.P.C. that he has never asked bribe from complainant
but in fact has been falsely implicated as entire case papers
have been prepared at ACB office, Valsad. After going
through evidence on record and noticing aforesaid glaring
defects which is also noticed by Trial Court while observing
that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond
doubt, I am of the view that possibility of false implication of
accused for alleged offence can not be ruled out.
14. So, after overall assessment of evidence and its re-
appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Trial
Court, I am in complete agreement with the view taken by
the Trial Court whereby it has acquitted the accused by
holding that prosecution has failed to establish the charge
beyond shadow of doubt.
15. Considering these set of evidences on record and in light of
the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
reproduced hereinabove, which deals with the law on
acquittal so also effect of defective sanction which is one of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
issue germen in the appeal, I am of the opinion that no error
has been committed by the Trial Court while acquitting the
respondent.
16. Consequently, the appeal is DISMISSED. Resultantly, the
impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby
confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record
and proceedings, called for, be sent back to the concerned
Trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
Nilesh
