Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vinubhai Haribhai Solanki on 5 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1771 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VINUBHAI HARIBHAI SOLANKI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEET THAKKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) 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 18.03.2008 passed
by the Court of learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial
Court") in Special (ACB) Case No.02 of 1998. By way of the
impugned judgment and order, Accused have been acquitted
of all the charges levelled against them under Sections-7, 12,
13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
2. The respondent no.1 herein happens to be the Accused
no.1 reported to be died pending the appeal, hence appeal
qua respondent no.1 stands abetted.
3. The short facts emerging from the record, reads as
under:-
3.1. It is the case of the complainant that he was a delivery
boy of gas cylinder in the area of Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar and he
was threatened by accused on 14.05.1997 by informing him
that accused are police personnel and booked complainant in
false case of illegally selling gas from the bottles. Accused
have demanded Rs.100/- each, in all Rs.300/- from
complainant. So, he has approached the concerned Anti
Corruption Bureau (ACB) Office and after getting material
particulars of all accused persons, a formal complaint has
been filed by the complainant and thereafter, department has
arranged for the trap.
3.2. On the next day i.e. on 15.05.1997, it was alleged that
accused no.1 came to the place of complainant and having
collected Rs.300/- as a bribe in presence of Panch Witnesses
from the complainant, thereafter on chasing him, ultimately
recovered sum of Rs.300/- received from complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
3.3. After registering FIR and on completion of investigation,
all three accused have been charge-sheeted for alleged
offence under Sections-7, 12, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 201 of
the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered with the Trial
Court and charges were framed at Exhibit-5.
4. Oral and documentary evidences have been led by the
prosecution but the Trial Court ultimately acquitted the
accused from all charges.
5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Meet
Thakkar for Appellant - State.
5.1. Learned APP would submit that prosecution has
successfully proved all charges against accused, but, in view
of the demise of the accused no.1, as the appeal stands
abetted qua him, this Court may consider the case of
prosecution for the remaining accused.
5.2. Learned APP would further submit that complainant was
not a literate person, may not remember each and every fact
of commission of crime i.e. demand and acceptance by
accused, would not give benefit of doubt to accused. Learned
APP would further submit that Panch Witness has also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
supported the case of complainant and money recovered from
the house of one Natubhai who was friend of accused no.1
whereby, charges leveled against accused have been
successfully proved. So, he would request this Court to allow
the appeal.
6. At the outset, it is required to be taken note of the fact
that accused no.1 i.e. Vinubhai Haribhai Solanki died during
pendency of appeal whereby, appeal stand abetted qua him.
There is no other clinching evidence involved against accused
no.2 and 3 for alleged commission of crime and as such,
charges against them are not supported by any oral and
documentary evidence.
6.1. Apart from the aforesaid aspect of the case, when this
Court has re-appreciated oral and documentary evidence on
record, it appears that as per the oral evidence of
complainant, accused no.1 had not come on scooter as alleged
by Panch Witness No.1 but, some different person came on
15.05.1997 and met complainant in presence of Panch
Witness and collected Rs.300/- from the complainant and left
the spot. The raiding party appears to have produced two
persons and requested the complainant to identify as to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
whether one out of two was the person who collected Rs.300/-
from the complainant. This fact is clearly stated by the
complainant in his oral evidence. Thus, a person who has
collected Rs.300/- was neither identified by complainant nor
arraigned as accused by prosecution. It is true that
complainant has identified accused no.1 in Test Identification
(T.I.) Parade, but, considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, it would be unsafe to put
reliance upon such T.I. Parade to presume involvement of
accused no.1 for alleged commission of crime especially
amount of bribe not recovered from accused no.1.
6.2. The recovery of money of bribe from the house of
Natubhai has also remained under cloud and entire
investigation undertaken is not trustworthy and reliable. It
has further came on record and so observed by Trial Court in
impugned judgment that sanction order issued by Sanctioning
Authority to presume accused for alleged offence committed
under the Corruption Act is not exhibited thereby, prosecution
has not presented its case with sincerity which ultimately led
to one conclusion that entire investigation to raid and
conducting of trial by the prosecution is very weak.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1771/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, when there is no direct
and cogent evidence available on record which can involve
accused no.2 and 3 for alleged commission of crime and also
the evidence on record is shown weak and doubtful to as such
involved accused no.1 in commission of crime, I am of the
view that observations, reasons and findings so recorded by
Trial Court is neither perverse nor erroneous and in any case
not contrary to settled principle of law thereby no
interference is required by this Court while exercising its
appellate powers under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
8. 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, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial
Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Bhoomi
