Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Janardan Hariharrai Mankad on 13 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2403/2005 ORDER DATED: 13/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2403 of 2005
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JANARDAN HARIHARRAI MANKAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS. BHAVINI N. BUCH(5403) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 13/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the State
and learned advocate Mr. Nirad D. Buch for the
Respondent.
2. The appeal is being filed by the State of Gujarat to
challenge the judgment and order dated 31-3-2005 passed
by the Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.10, Rajkot in
Special (ACB) Case No. 17/1993.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the
complainant Amarsinh Maganlal Makwana was
transferred from Lodhika Panchayat as driver to Malaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2403/2005 ORDER DATED: 13/05/2025
undefined
department in Rajkot and he resumed his duty at
Rajkot. However the order of transfer was revoked. The
accused demanded bribe of Rs.2000/- from the
complainant for the said work. On 17-5-1993 he was
arrested while taking first instalment of bribe money of
Rs.500/-. Thereafter FIR being I-C.R. No.7/1993, was
registered at A.C.B. Police Station, Rajkot against the
accused for the offences punishable u/s. 7 read with
Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, by the impugned judgment and order dated 31-3-
2005 in Special (ACB) Case No.17/1993.
3.1 After completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet for the
offences punishable u/s.7 read with Section 12, 13(1)(d),
13(2) of the Act. Thereafter the matter was committed to
the Hon'ble Sessions Court and the case was registered
as Special (ACB) Case No.17/1993.
3.2 The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and
claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore led
evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned
Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.10, Rajkot passed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2403/2005 ORDER DATED: 13/05/2025
undefined
order of Acquittal on 31-3-2005.
3.3 The appeal is filed against the said Judgment, as
the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.10,
Rajkot, has not properly appreciated the evidence
available on the record of the case as well as legal
provisions applicable to the facts of the case.
4. The State is in appeal against the order of
acquittal of the Respondent accused who was allegedly
caught red handed taking a bribe of Rs.500/-. It is the
specific case of the prosecution that the complainant
Amarsinh Maganlal Makwana was transferred from
Lodhika Panchayat as a driver to Malaria Department at
Rajkot.
5. The said order of transfer came to be revoked and
the accused had demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- from the
complainant to ensure that the complainant was
transferred back to Lodhika. Accordingly, upon the trap
being set with the complainant and two Panch
Witnesses, the accused is said to have taken a bribe of
Rs.500/- comprising 500/- rupee notes. It was the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2403/2005 ORDER DATED: 13/05/2025
undefined
PW-2 - Panch Witness No.1, that the complainant had
given the bribe-money which was laced with Anthracene
powder and the accused had extended his right arm to
accept the said bribe money and put it in the pocket of
his shirt and upon the signal being given to the raiding
party, the accused had taken the bribe amount out of
his pocket and had thrown it on the floor. Upon full
fledged trial, the accused came to be acquitted because
the complainant himself had turned hostile. Further the
Panch No.2, a crucial witness, was not examined by the
prosecution and the Investigating Officer categorically
deposed that only the two panch witnesses and the
complainant could have witnessed the transaction.
6. In view of the fact that the crucial Panch Witness
being a Panch No.2 has not even been examined and the
complainant has been declared hostile after cross
examination, there is no corroboration whatsoever of
Panch No.1 i.e PW - 2. While acquitting the accused, it
has been noted by the learned trial Court that the sole
panch witness seemed to be heavily tutored and had
literally crammed his testimony and had parroted his
deposition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2403/2005 ORDER DATED: 13/05/2025
undefined
7. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that
the prosecution had failed to bring home its case within
the acceptable limits and the trial Court was justified in
giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
8. Anyways, the incident is of the year 1993 and the
acquittal is of the year 2005. Hence also, I find it
appropriate not to substitute the opinion of the learned
trial Court with any other opinion which may also have
been plausible. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
9. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J)
MAYA
