Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ranchhodji Nathuji Vaghela on 5 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2020 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RANCHHODJI NATHUJI VAGHELA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 05/06/2025
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 11/04/2008 passed by
learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Banaskantha at
Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Special
Case No.20 of 2005. By way of the impugned judgment and order,
the accused has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
him under Sections-7 and 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Corruption Act").
2. The short facts emerging from the record are read as under:-
2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that one Gopalbhai Nenabhai
Kankodiya (Vaghari), a resident of village Magarvada, Taluka
Vadgam, District Banaskantha, was alleged to have been
involved in selling liquor without any permit and so, having
allegedly been involved in liquor business, was subjected to
alleged harassment by the Chhapi Police Station, Taluka
Vadgam, District Banaskantha. He was arrested on
17/10/2004 and thereafter, the accused sought bribe of
Rs.1,000/- from family members of said Gopalbhai to release
him.
2.2 As per the case of the prosecution, Head Constable Mr.
Dhasuram along with the accused, came to the residence of
Gopalbhai and having demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- and after
deliberation, agreed to accept Rs.800/-. Again, on 28/10/2004,
when the amount of bribe had not reached to the accused,
the said police personnel visited again and threatened the
mother of said Gopalbhai to pay the bribe. Under this
background of facts, the said Gopalbhai approached ACB
office and gave his written complaint on 28/10/2004 against
the accused as well as Head Constable Mr.Dhasuram.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
2.3 After the complaint of said Gopalbhai was recorded, the
necessary paperwork was completed, Panchas were called
and ultimately, a raid was arranged. The raiding party
including complainant, reached to the Chhapi Police Station
and in presence of the Panchas, the accused demanded and
accepted bribe from the complainant and was caught red-
handed by the raiding party. So, after recording Panchnama
and having found that accused had committed the alleged
crime of asking for and accepting bribe from the complainant,
on getting sanction from the competent authority, the
accused was charge-sheeted before the Special Court.
2.4 After registration of the F.I.R. and completion of the
investigation, a Special Case was registered before the Trial
Court for the offences punishable under Sections-7 and 13(1)
(2) of the Correction Act. The charge (Exh.6) was framed
against the accused by the Trial Court. Upon completion of
the trial, the Trial Court has not found the accused guilty of
committing the offence under which he was charged and
thereby, he was acquitted from such charge levelled against
him.
3. The prosecution led the following oral and documentary
evidence in support of its case and to bring home the charges
against the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
Oral Evidences of Prosecution
Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh.
Documentary Evidences
Sr.No. Document Particulars Exh.
employees for confidential work
offense
10. F.S.L.'s report with receipt of the seized 49
muddamal
11. Letter from P.S.I. regarding details of the 50
offence
Police Station
Mahamadkhan Sindhi
Samantsinh Godaji
4. After conducting the trial and appreciating the evidence on
record, the Trial Court has found that the prosecution has failed to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
establish its case and was not able to prove the charges beyond
doubt, thereby acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled
against him.
5. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.Jirga
Jhaveri for the State at length. Learned APP has taken me through
the 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 APP Ms. Jhaveri 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 Ms. Jhaveri would submit that the prosecution
has successfully established on record that the accused has
demanded and accepted Rs.800/- from the complainant,
thereby, proved the ingredients of Section-7 read with
Section-13 of the Corruption Act.
6.2 Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri would submit that Trial Court has
erroneously observed that accused has not demanded bribe
from complainant and erroneously came to the conclusion
that prosecution has failed to prove charges beyond doubt.
6.3 Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri would further submit that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
prosecution has successfully proved all the charges levelled
against the accused by leading cogent and convincing
evidence and that the accused ought to have been punished
for the crime committed by him.
6.4 Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri would submit that merely because
complainant turned hostile would not ipso facto be a ground
to record the order of acquittal. It is submitted that the Trial
Court has erroneously ignored the convincing evidence on
record, inasmuch as the demand, acceptance and recovery of
the amount of bribe from the accused and thereby wrongly
acquitted the accused from the charge.
6.5 Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri would submit that the Trial Court
has drawn a wrong presumption against the case of the
prosecution while giving undue advantage to minor
contradictions alleged to have remained in evidence of the
complainant. It is submitted that once complainant having
clearly stated that accused having accepted bribe of Rs.800/-
from the complainant, there was no reason to acquit him
from the charge.
6.6 Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri would further submit that though
complainant turned hostile, the panchas have supported the
case of the prosecution, wherein it has been clearly
established that the accused, misusing his position, had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
unauthorizedly compelled the complainant to pay a bribe to
save him from future complaints and/or remand in connection
with prohibition cases.
6.7 Thus, the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court while
acquitting the accused are unjust, improper, perverse and
unwarranted to the facts of the prosecution case and thereby,
has committed an error in acquitting the accused. It is
further submitted that the prosecution has established the
guilt of the accused and learned Trial Court has committed
an error both on law and facts.
6.8 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 Neeraj Dutta V/s. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731, wherein it held as under:-
"88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
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 offence of obtainment under
Section 13 (1)(d) and (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) 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 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.
88.8 (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
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."
(emphasis supplied)
8.1 It would be also appropriate to refer and rely upon the
decision of Hon'ble 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
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:
"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)
8.2 The law on the issue germen in the present appeal has also
been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its recent
judgment in the case of State of Lokayuktha Police, Devanagere
V/s. C. B. Nagaraj delivered on 19 th May, 2005 in Criminal
Appeal No.1157/2015 [2025 INSC 736], wherein held as under:
"25. It is pertinent to note that till 05.02.2007, when the Respondent had
conducted the physical/spot inspection, there is not even a whisper of
there being any demand of bribe. Moreover, when the Complainant went
back to the Respondent's office at 5:30 PM with the money, the
prosecution case itself as per the deposition of its witnesses makes it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
clear that the Respondent had informed the Complainant that he had
already forwarded the concerned file. Thus, if the same is accepted,
there was no occasion for the Complainant to go ahead with paying the
amount, which he claims to be in the nature of bribe demanded by the
Respondent, after the work for which the bribe was purportedly sought,
had already been done. The observation of the High Court to this
extent is correct that just because money changed hands, in cases
like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same
was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for
conviction under the Act, an entire chain - beginning from
demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed. In the
case at hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if
the two other components - of payment and recovery can be held
to have been proved, the chain would not be complete. A penal
law has to be strictly construed [Md. Rahim Ali v State of Assam,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 @ Paragraph 45 and Jay Kishan v State
of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296 @ Paragraph 24]. While we will
advert to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act hereinafter, there
is no cavil that while a reverse onus under specific statute can be placed
on an accused, even then, there cannot be a presumption which casts an
uncalled for onus on the accused. Chandrasha (supra) would not apply
as demand has not been proven. In Paritala Sudhakar v State of
Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072, it was stated thus:
'21. As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption
under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the
Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the
factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between
the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances,
the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate
against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash
v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250:
'22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution
case, we are of the opinion that the defence story set up by the
appellant cannot be said to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it
is not a case where the burden of proof was on the accused in
terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise, where demand
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no
application. (Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12
SCC 576: (2005) 8 Scale 246] and T. Subramanian v. State of
T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401: (2006) 1 Scale 116])"
(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 accused had demanded bribe from
complainant or not and is there any serious error of law and facts
committed by Trial Court while acquitting accused?
11. This Court after re-appreciating and re-examining the
evidence on record, has found the following lacuna and
discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution as under:
11.1 The complainant turned hostile and did not support the case
of the prosecution. Nonetheless, when he was cross-examined
by prosecution, his evidence cannot be discarded. The
complainant has admitted that at the time of the raid, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
accused was not accompanied by his superior.
11.2 The complainant had alleged in the complaint that Head
Constable Mr. Dhasuram came along with the accused to
demand a bribe; however, for reasons best known to the
prosecution, Head Constable Mr. Dhasuram and PSI Mr.Rana
were never arraigned as accused. As such, no investigation
was carried out in this regard.
11.3 It has been further admitted by a prosecution witness, more
particularly the Trapping Officer Mr. Rana-PW5 (Exh.43),
that the amount of the bribe allegedly demanded by the
accused would not fall within the jurisdiction of his office
situated at Mehsana. Even as per the case of the
complainant, he first approached the ACB office in Palanpur.
11.4 The complainant has further admitted that the raid was
undertaken by PSI Mr.Rana and the presence of the accused
was not confirmed prior to it.
11.5 The purpose of filing the complaint (Exh.16) was to teach a
lesson to the police and to some extent, the complainant and
his mother were successful, having not received any further
harassment after filing the said complaint.
11.6 The complainant has admitted that the accused has not
demanded any money from his mother and thereby, it is not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
proved that the accused had first demanded money from the
complainant.
11.7 Even otherwise, as per the record, it appears that the
accused had no authority either to arrest or to investigate the
complainant in relation to the prohibition case; rather, PSI
Mr.Rana and Head Constable Mr.Dhasuram had carried out
the raid. In such a situation, there is no reason to believe that
it was the accused who had sought for any bribe and actually
received it.
11.8 The raid was conducted in a hotel, i.e., a public place, but
neither the owner of the hotel nor any other independent
witness was examined, which creates doubt, particularly after
the complainant turned hostile.
11.9 The evidence of P.I. Mr. Mane-PW5, would suggest that the
bribe money (currency notes) was collected from the
complainant, in front of whom the accused was sitting, and
not from the accused himself. However, as per the Seizure
Memo, the currency notes were recovered from the actual
physical possession of the accused. This appears to be a
significant discrepancy regarding the recovery of the bribe
money, which goes to the root of the matter.
11.10 It further appears that the Panchas have admitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
when they entered into the Chhapi Police Station for the first
time, they stayed for about 15 minutes, whereas, as per the
panchnama, the presence of Panchas was found between
11.30 am to 14.00 pm. As per the evidence of Panchas, it
appears that they have simply signed the Panchnama and
same was prepared at the instance of PW5. This discrepancy
speaks about manner in which Panchnama was prepared.
11.11 It has been further emerged from the evidence of the
Panchas that they admitted having deposed as per the
Panchnama having under threat of department proceeding
may be initiated against him. The Pancha who had
accompanied namely Mr. Mukeshkumar PW2, has admitted
that when the complainant and the accused shook hands, he
was not present. So, the evidence of panch-witness is not
trustworthy and is not to be relied upon, as their independent
witness has not come on record; rather, the possibility that
their evidence was under threat and compulsion cannot be
ruled out.
11.12 Even, as per the oral evidence of Mr. Sahebkhan-PW3,
who was present at the time of the raid at the Chhapi Police
Station working as an unarmed police constable, it was
clearly stated that PW2 had picked up currency notes at the
instruction of PI Mr. Rane-PW5, in the presence of PW-1 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
PW2. Thus, the bribe money was not collected from the
possession of the accused.
11.13 The evidence of the complainant, the panch-witness
and the Trapping Officer was contradictory and did not fully
support the case of the prosecution; thereby, the charges
were not proved beyond doubt, which is a sine qua non to
prove the guilt of the accused.
12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and
circumstances, the evidence and the reasons assigned by the Trial
Court while acquitting the accused are just, reasonable, and
neither perverse nor erroneous; thereby, no interference is
required by this Court. Having so, in alignment with the aforesaid
conclusion, and I am in complete agreement with the view taken by
the Trial Court while having acquitted the accused from all
charges.
13. 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 as
well as the issue germane in the appeal, I am of the opinion that no
error has been committed by the Trial Court while acquitting the
respondent.
14. Consequently, the appeal is DISMISSED. Resultantly, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2020/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
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
