Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Chimanbhai Kabhai Vasava on 14 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/51/2007 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 51 of 2007
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHIMANBHAI KABHAI VASAVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) 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.
Kunal S. Shah for the Respondent.
2. The State has filed the present Appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code
challenging inter alia the Judgment and Order dated
30.10.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Surat in Special
Case No.10/1997, by which, the Ld. Trial Court had
acquitted the respondent-accused under Sections 7, 13(1)
(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act holding
inter alia that the prosecution had failed to prove the
circumstances relied upon for the purpose of establishing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/51/2007 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
the guilt of the accused by any reliable or satisfactory
evidence.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present
appeal are as under :-
3.1 An offence came to be registered with A.C.B. Police
Station, Surat being C.R. No.2/1996 for the offences
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of the Corruption Act. The said complaint was
registered by Hussain Ahmed Shaik resident of Near
Rajivnagar Bhattha, Rader, Surat on 09.04.1996.
3.2 The complainant viz., Hussain Ahmad Shaikh,
resident of Nr. Rajivnagar Bhattha, Rader, Surat in his
complaint dated 09.04.1996 has informed that he is doing
the business of imitation jewelery and as he was having
some experience of fishing, he wanted to do business of
fishing by keeping one small pond and, hence, in the
forthcoming month, the complainant met Deputy
Sarpanch of Jiav Village and on another day, he met
Taluka-cum-Mantri and talked to him about the business
of fishing on 29.03.1996. The Talati-cum-Mantri viz.,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/51/2007 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
Chimanbhai (the respondent-accused) informed the
complainant to come in the meeting of 29.03.1996 so
that he will decide the rent with the panchayat member
and finalize the matter. As the complainant could not go
on that day, he went and gave application on 02.04.1996.
When he went to give the application, the Talati-cum-
Mantri made the complainant sit and called two other
members and Deputy Sarpanch and decided the rent of
the pond for two years, but after the other persons left,
the respondent-accused made a demand by saying that
you will get a pond from June onwards and the
respondent-accused also made demand of Rs.500/- towards
bribe, out of which, the complainant gave one note of
Rs.100/-, which the respondent-accused accepted. On
09.04.1996, when the complainant telephoned the
respondent-accused on the number given by the
respondent-accused, the respondent-accused asked the
complainant to meet in the office at about 12 o'clock and
also asked the complainant to bring Rs.400/- with him.
Since the complainant was not willing to give money to
the respondent-accused, he went to A.C.B. Police Station,
and lodged the complaint against the respondent-accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/51/2007 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
3.3 According to the prosecution case, after registration
of the offence, Mr. Kulkarni, Police Inspector called two
persons from the Government office to remain as panch
and in their presence, the complainant narrated the facts
of his complaint to the panchas. Thereafter, the
necessary experiment of enthracene powder and ultra
violet lamp were carried out on the currency note by
A.C.B. personnel and number of currency note was noted
down in the panchnama. The currency note was put in
the pocket of the complainant with an instruction to give
money after demand was being made by the respondent-
accused and also instructed to give gesture as and when
the respondent-accused accepted the bribe amount.
3.4 It is the further case of the prosecution that the
Panch No.1 was instructed to remain present with the
complainant and hear and see whatever conversation is
being made between the complainant and the respondent-
accused and the transaction of demand and acceptance of
the amount. The Panch No 2 and A.C.B. Staff were
instructed to remain there and tried to see and hear
whatever is being done there. Thereafter, the first part
of panchnama was prepared in the office of A.C.B. office
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/51/2007 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
on 09.04.1996 between 11:20 to 13:10.
3.5 It is the further case of the prosecution that
thereafter, the A.C.B. Staff, the complainant and two
panchas proceeded towards the office of the respondent-
accused in a Government vehicle. That the complainant
and Panch No.1 went ahead and met the respondent-
accused. That the conversation of demand and acceptance
was made between the complainant and the respondent-
accused and the respondent-accused demanded the
marked currency notes from the complainant. After giving
bribe amount to the respondent-accused, the complainant
made a gesture to the raiding party and, hence, the
raiding party rushed there and caught hold of the
respondent-accused and after introducing themselves to
the respondent-accused, search of the respondent-accused
was carried out and found the marked currency notes
from the pocket of the respondent-accused.
3.6 It is the further case of the prosecution that P.I.
got the marked currency notes from the pocket of the
shirt of the respondent-accused and, thereafter, they went
to the Office of the A.C.B. Thereafter, the experiment of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/51/2007 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
ultra violet lamp was carried out on the hands of the
complainant, the respondent-accused, Panch No.1 and
other members of the raiding party and found signs of
powder. Thereafter, the said marked currency notes were
seized and the number of the same was tallied with the
numbers noted down in the preliminary panchnama and
necessary receipt thereof was given to the respondent-
accused. After completion of all formalities, second part
of panchnama was prepared, wherein Investigating Officer
and panchas have signed. Accordingly, the complaint
came to be registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
3.7 On the basis of complaint, investigation was
embarked upon and the respondent-accused came to be
arrested on 11.09.1996. On completion of the same, on
the basis of the material collected against the
respondent-accused, since the Investigating Officer found
a prima-facie case against the respondent-accused,
chargesheet came to be filed before the Special Court on
31.01.1997.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/51/2007 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
3.8 Vide Exh. 4, charge came to be framed and vide
Exh. 5, further statement of the respondent-accused was
recorded, wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
3.9 During the course of trial, the prosecution produced
elaborate evidence both documentary as well as oral and
examined Prosecution Witness No.1 viz., Hussain Ahmad
Shaikh, Exh. 13 (Complainant), Prosecution Witness No.2
viz., Prakashhbai Ramubhai Patel, Exh. 14 (Panch
Witness), Prosecution Witness No.3 viz., Gulabsing
Lalsing Page, Exh.24, Prosecution Witness No.4 viz.,
Ambapratapsinh Chandravijaysinh Jadeja, Exh. 26 and
Prosecution Witness No.5 viz., Ajabsinh Mulsinh Rathod,
Exh.28 and produced approximately 9 documentary
evidence to substantiate the charge in favour of the
chargesheet.
3.10 On appreciation of oral as well as documentary
evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by
the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the Learned Special Judge, Surat was pleased to
acquit the respondent-accused holding inter alia that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/51/2007 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
prosecution had failed to prove the circumstances relied
upon for the purpose of establishing the guilt of the
accused by any reliable or satisfactory evidence.
4. Learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi has taken me
through the evidence. Upon going through the same, it
seems that in the complaint, the complainant had stated
that a sum of Rs.500/- towards the bribe was given to
the accused. However, in his deposition, he has stated
that Rs.400/- was given in the presence of the raiding
party. Subsequently, the complainant has also stated that
out of Rs.400/-, Rs.375 was given towards the official
charges of preferring an application towards taking out a
lease agreement for fishing in respect of certain
pond/lake in village Jiav near Surat. In the statement of
the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused
has specifically stated that upon receiving Rs.400/-
towards the application money, even before he could offer
the complainant the change of Rs.25, the raiding party
came and caught him.
5. It is also seen that the complainant was declared
hostile and cross examined by the prosecution. Thus, I
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/51/2007 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
am of the opinion that the central thrust of the
prosecution being the demand and acceptance of a bribe
amount of Rs.500/- has fallen, inasmuch as, the
complainant has categorically deposed that not only was
a sum of Rs.500/- not paid on the spot but out of a sum
of Rs.400/- that was actually paid, Rs.375 was towards
the application money for the lease agreement in respect
of a fishing contract. In such view of the matter and
also taking into account that the sanction was granted
without taking into account the aforesaid circumstances,
coupled with the fact that the sanctioning authority was
not even examined by the prosecution, I am of the view
that the learned Trial Court had correctly acquitted the
accused. In these circumstances, there is no occasion to
take any other view and resultantly, the instant appeal
is dismissed.
6. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J)
MAYA
