Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Reshma Abdulla Irani on 27 June, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                              R/CR.A/622/2009                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ENHANCEMENT) NO. 622 of 2009


                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
                         ================================================================

                                     Approved for Reporting                  Yes           No


                        ================================================================
                                                        STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                              Versus
                                                      RESHMA ABDULLA IRANI
                        ================================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                        RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                        ================================================================

                           CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS

                                                         Date : 27/06/2025

                                                        ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Though served with the notice issued by this Court, the

respondent-accused has not remained present before this Court

either in person or through an advocate and oppose the present

appeal.

2. This enhancement appeal is being filed by the appellant-

State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/622/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

undefined

dated 16.02.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast

Track Court No.3, Vadodara, in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.14 of

2008.

3. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and

sentence, the learned Presiding Officer was pleased to convict

the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section

12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and consequently,

sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months

along with fine of Rs.2,000=00, and in default of payment of fine,

to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

4. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as under :

(i) That on 13.07.2008, a complaint being I-CR No.67 of

2008 came to be registered with the Vadi Police Station,

Vadodara city, for the offence punishable under Sections

394 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia alleging

that the accused persons had tried to snatch away gold

ornaments from the complainant lady, however, due to hue

and cry made by the her, one of the accused persons,

namely, Tabrez, was caught. The investigation of the said

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/622/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

undefined

case was handed over to Shri Sabalsinh Vaghubhai Sagar,

Police Inspector, Vadi Police Station, Vadodara.

(ii) That the respondent herein, namely, Reshma, had

called on the Mobile Phone No.9850489387 belonging to

the accused Tabrez from Mobile Phone No.9270489866

and talked with Shri Sagar, Police Inspector, informing him

not to harass Tabrez (i.e. the accused of I-CR No.67 of

2008) and insisted for settlement. On 14.07.2008, since

the Investigating Officer Shri Sagar was busy in some other

work, he had informed Shri Kaushik Dinkarrai Pandya,

Police Inspector, DCB Police Station, Vadodara (i.e. the

present complainant) to look into the matter. Therefore, he

met the present respondent-accused Reshma, where she

tried to offer bribe and insisted for settlement. However,

the complainant managed to convince her to meet again

and informed accordingly to Shri Sagar about it.

Thereafter, they had filed a complaint with the A.C.B.

Police Station, Vadodara, and a trap was arranged, wherein

the respondent-accused Reshma was caught red-handed

offering bribe to the complainant.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/622/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

undefined

(iii) The complaint was lodged by the complainant vide I-

CR No.14 of 2008 with the A.C.B. Police Station, Vadodara,

against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable

under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988.

(iv) That pursuant to the FIR, the investigation was

carried out, and during the investigation, the necessary

panchnamas were drawn and the statements of the

witnesses conversant with the incident were recorded. After

completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to

be filed against the present respondent-accused for the

offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act

before the Special Court at Vadodara and it was registered

as Special (A.C.B.) Case No.14 of 2008. The learned

Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Vadodara, framed

the Charge vide Exh.6 against the present respondent-

accused, whereupon the respondent-accused pleaded not

guilty.

4. To bring home the charge against the respondent-accused,

the prosecution has examined, in all, 05 witnesses and adduced

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/622/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

undefined

09 documentary evidence in support of the case, which are as

follow:

WITNESSES

NO. NAME EXHIBIT

3. Sabalsinh Vaghubhai Sagar (Witness) Police 22 Inspector, Vadi Police Station, Vadodara

5. Munawarkhan Jamalkhan Pathan - Investigating 25 Officer

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

SR. DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT EXHIBIT NO.

2 Panchnama of the seized notes offered as bribe by 21 the accused in presence of the panchas 3 True copy of the seizure memo 18/19 4 Report sent to the A.C.B. Police Station, Vadodara, 26 by the Anti Corruption Branch 5 Complaint No.I-67 of 2008 of the Vadi Police Station 13 6 Email of the company of mobile no.9270489866 14 7 Call detail record of mobile no.919850483987 15

9 Arrest Memo of the accused Tabrez (76 of 2008 of 17 Vadi Police Station)

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/622/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

undefined

5. The learned Special Judge recorded the further statement

of the respondent-accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with

regard to the incriminating circumstances made against her in

the evidence rendered by the prosecution and the respondent-

accused denied the charges levelled against her by pleading

innocence and stated that she has been falsely implicated in the

alleged offence. The respondent-accused had not led any

evidence in her defense. Therefore, the learned Special Judge

proceeded to convict and sentence the respondent-accused for

the offence as aforementioned.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of

sentence awarded by the trial court, the appellant-State has

preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the sentence

imposed upon the respondent-accused mainly on the grounds

that the sentence awarded by the trial court is inadequate and

disproportionate to the offence committed by the respondent-

accused and the trial court has committed an error in taking a

lenient view while imposing a lesser sentence.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE.

7. Ms.Asmita Patel, learned APP appearing for the appellant-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/622/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

undefined

State has submitted that the trial court has, without assigning

any adequate and special reasons, awarded inadequate

sentence. The law in this regard is well-settled that while

awarding the punishment, the court should take into

consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances under

which it was committed and the degree of deliberation shown by

the offender. Ms.Patel has submitted that the measure of

punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

In the facts of the present case, the respondent-accused has

been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under

Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which, the

punishment can be for a minimum of three years and maximum

upto seven years and shall also be liable to fine. However, the

trial court, after considering the age of the respondent-accused

as well as considering the fact that she is a widow having small

children and there is no other male member in the family,

imposed a lesser sentence (i.e. simple imprisonment of six

months) for the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act. In the facts of the present case, despite there

being overwhelming evidence against the respondent-accused,

the trial court has awarded lesser sentence which, ultimately,

will result into travesty of justice and spread a wrong message to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/622/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

undefined

the society. The trial court ought to have taken a deterrent view

while imposing the sentence in such a serious offence. Learned

APP Ms.Patel has lastly submitted that taking into consideration

the aforesaid circumstances as well as the seriousness and

gravamen of the offence committed by the respondent-accused,

the appeal is required to be admitted and allowed, thereby the

sentence awarded by the trial court may be enhanced to the

maximum punishment for the offences with which the

respondent-accused has been charged.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :

8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties

and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present

case, prima facie it appears that the trial court has convicted the

present respondent-accused for the alleged offence and imposed

a short term of sentence of simple imprisonment for six months

along with a fine of Rs.2,000=00. It prima facie appears that the

appellant-State has filed the present appeal for enhancement of

the sentence on a very limited ground. It is an admitted fact that

after the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial

court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal being

Criminal Appeal No.622 of 2009. Admittedly, it appears from the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/622/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

undefined

bare perusal of the judgment of the trial court that the trial

court, after taking into consideration the age of the respondent-

accused as well as considering the fact that she is a widow

having small children and there is no other male member in the

family, imposed a lesser sentence (i.e. simple imprisonment of

six months) for the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act. The trial court has, in its judgment at para-3 on

page-22, assigned the reasons for awarding the punishment.

9. The punishment for the offence under Section 12 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act is minimum of three years and

maximum upto seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads thus :

"12. Punishment for abetment of offences.- Whoever

abets any offence punishable under this Act, whether or not

that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which

shall be not less than three years, but which may extend to

seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

10. On the overall appreciation and reanalysis of the entire

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/622/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

undefined

evidence, prima facie, it appears that the trial court, after taking

into consideration the nature of the offence as well as the

circumstances and the manner in which it was occurred and

also considering the fact that the respondent-accused is a widow

having small children and there is no other male member in the

family, has imposed a lesser sentence (i.e. simple imprisonment

of six months) along with a fine of Rs.2,000=00, which cannot be

said to be perverse or illegal since the trial court has exercised

its discretion to impose the minimum sentence. Therefore, this

Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial

court, since, while exercising the judicial discretion, the trial

court has recorded sufficient and adequate reasons. This Court

is satisfied with the reasoning assigned by the trial court on the

aspect of sentence and, therefore, no interference is required to

be made with the discretion exercised by the trial court. It is

settled position of law that the question of sentence is a matter

of discretion, and if sufficient reasons are recorded by the trial

court, then the High Court should not interfere with the decision

of the trial court on the issue of sentence. This Court deems it fit

to refer to the principles, as laid down by the Supreme Court in

the case of Bed Raj vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1955 SC

778, governing exercise of powers by the High Court while

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/622/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

undefined

enhancing the sentence imposed by the trial court, which reads

thus :

"A question of a sentence is a matter of discretion and it is

well settled that when discretion has been properly

exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate court

should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person

except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on

the face of the judgment; see for example the observations in

-'Dalip Singh v/s. State of Punjab', and 'Nar Sigh v/s. State

of Uttar Pradesh'.

In a matter of enhancement there should not be interference

when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment.

Interference is only called for when it is manifestly

inadequate. In our opinion, these principles have not been

observed. It is impossible to hold in the circumstances

described that the Sessions Judge did not impose a

substantial sentence, and no adequate reason has been

assigned by the learned High Court Judges for considering

the sentence manifestly inadequate....."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/622/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025

undefined

11. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case as well as considering the principles as laid down

by the Supreme Court in the case of Bed Raj (supra), this Court

is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the

trial court while imposing the lesser sentence do not suffer from

any perversity or illegality. The findings recorded by the trial

court are absolutely just and proper, and in recording the same,

no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the trial court.

Therefore, this Court does not find any ground warranting