Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Punjabhai Balabhai Garchar on 14 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 600 of 2008
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PUNJABHAI BALABHAI GARCHAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 14/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned APP, Mr. Soaham Joshi for the
Appellant - State of Gujarat and learned advocate
Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the Respondent.
2. The present appeal is filed by the State against the
order of acquittal dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Junagadh in
Special (ACB) Case N0.8 of 1991.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the
complainant Kanabhai Karsanbhai residing at Village
Karamsadi Singariya, Tal. Mangrol land bearing Survey
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
No.82, admeasuring 5 Vighas at Vokala. Survey no.83
which was situated near land of the complainant is
Government vested land, and the complainant made an
application for acquiring the same. But there was
objection of the Gram Panchayat and the Talati cum
Mantri Punjabhai Rabari was informed to file report and
he made a report which was filed in the Mamlatdar
Office, Mangrol.
3.1 On 16.08.1990, when the complainant made a
second application for the same, the accused met with
complainant and complainant asked the accused for help
in the said application. In reply, the accused demanded
Rs.2000/- for the same. On bargaining, the accused fixed
the same at Rs. 1500/- for which complainant agreed to
pay within 15 to 20 days to the accused.
3.2 However, on 28.08.1990, when the complainant went
to the Mamlatdar office for permit of kerosene, accused
met him in the compound of the Mamlatdar office. At
that time, complainant asked the accused as to how
many days will be required for the said work, to which
the accused replied that first of all, the complainant will
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
have to pay and thereafter, he would sent the proposal
to the office of the Mamlatdar. Therefore, the
complainant said that one week may be required for
collecting the amount. On 5.09.1990 and 6.09.1990, the
accused came to Mangrol. The complainant after
bargaining, said that some part of the amount will paid
by him after some time. At the end of their discussion,
the accused asked the complainant to come with
Rs.1,250/- and rest of Rs.250/- may be sent at the
convenience of the complainant. On 28.08.1990, the
complainant felt that he should not give the bribe.
Therefore the complainant had approached the ACB
Police station at Junagadh on 04.09.1990. After lodging
the complainant, P.I. ACB, Raghuvirsinh Chudasama,
Junagadh started preparation of trap to decoy the
accused. After following necessary procedure of law, the
trap was arranged by the P.I. Junagadh. After recording
the serial numbers of the currency notes and making the
complainant understand the use of Anthracene powder by
doing experiments with Anthracene powder and after
carrying out the introduction parade with all the
members of the raiding party, panch members and
complainant with each other, whole test procedure was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
completed. Thereafter, the complainant and panch witness
went to the Pan shop where accused had promised to
meet. Then the complainant met with the accused and
gave Rs.1,250/- to the accused which was accepted by
him and the accused put the notes in the pocket of his
trousers. Upon receiving the fixed signal, the panch
witness and the members of the raiding party including
PI ACB, Junagadh, went to the Pan shop and asked the
panch witness as to what had happened. To which, the
panch witness narrated the whole incident. The accused
had accepted money of bribe from the complainant, in
the presence of the panch. Bribe amount of Rs.1,250/-
was recovered from the accused hence, strains of
Anthracene Powder was found on the hand of the
accused at the time of conducting the experiment of
ultra violet light. PI, ACB, Junagadh, tallied the serial
numbers of currency notes recovered from accused with
the numbers of notes at the time of drawing the
preliminary panchnama.
3.3 Thereafter, seizure memo was given to the accused.
Thereafter, the case was registered against the accused
after getting the necessary sanction from the competent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
authority. The bribe amount was recovered from the
conscious possession of the accused person. Thereafter,
the case was registered against the accused. The ACB,
Junagadh arrested the accused and produced him before
the Court. The ACB, Junagadh after obtaining proper
sanction from the Government and after recording
evidence of relevant witnesses, prepared charge-sheet
against the accused and submitted the same before the
Court of Learned Judge. The case being exclusively
sessions triable, was committed to the Special Court,
Junagadh, as per Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. which in
turn transferred the case to the concerned court for its
final disposal. The accused was produced before the
Court and after verifying whether the accused was given
all the necessary police papers or not, the learned
Special Judge, framed charges against the accused person
to which the plea of the accused person was recorded,
wherein he denied his involvement in the offence. To
prove its case, the prosecution has examined many
witnesses and various documentary evidences. However,
the learned Special Judge, Junagadh, after hearing both
the parties vide his judgment and order dated 31.07.2007
acquitted the accused of the offences with which he was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
charged. Hence, the present appeal.
4. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the
members of the raiding party i.e. Panch members and
complainant had gone to the Pan shop owned by PW-3
where the accused was supposed to have a rendezvous.
The complainant after waiting for more than three hours
at the said Pan shop had allegedly given the accused a
sum of Rs.1,250/- which was accepted by the accused.
However, from the evidence on record, it is found that
except the complainant, PW-1 and Panch witness -
Girish Prabhashanker Bhatt, the PW-2, the most relevant
witness namely Karshanbhai - PW-3, the owner of the
Pan shop, where the entire alleged incident had taken
place, had turned hostile. It is seen from the deposition
of PW-3 that PW-3 had categorically denied the entire
incident stating that no such event had taken place in
his Pan shop. Thus, the neutral witness has not
supported the prosecution case.
5. This aspect of the matter has been meticulously
appreciated by the Trial Court at paragraph nos. 12 and
21 to 22 of the impugned judgment. Therefore, I am of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
the opinion that the learned Trial Court had rightly
come to the conclusion that the evidence of the
complainant is more dramatic than realistic, particularly,
in the context of the contradictory evidence of PW-3 to
6. In such view of the matter, the findings of the
learned Trial Court, being a plausible view, no case has
been made out by the prosecution to substitute such
plausible view with another view which may be taken by
me. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Notice is
discharged.
7. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J)
MAYA
