Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Karsanbhai Sagrambhai on 15 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2242/2009 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2242 of 2009
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KARSANBHAI SAGRAMBHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VRUNDA C. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KARTIK V PANDYA(2435) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 15/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Ms. Vrunda C. Shah, learned APP for the
Appellant - State and Mr. Kartik V. Pandya, learned
advocate for the Respondents.
2. The present appeal has been instituted by the
appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 18.08.2009, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 7th Fast
Track Court, Rajkot, whereby the respondents-accused
were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
3. The case of the prosecution, in nuce, is that, from
a complaint dated 21.01.1991 lodged by Haritsinh
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2242/2009 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025
undefined
Balvantsinh Jadeja before the Deputy Assistant Director,
Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Rajkot City and Rural.
The complainant, engaged in agriculture and owning a
goods vehicle (Mazda truck), had lent the said vehicle for
transporting a Jaan from Kharachiya to Bhadla. The
vehicle, driven by his employee Premjibhai Jilubhai
Jijariya, was allegedly intercepted at Bhadla by Shri
Pravinsinh Jadeja, a police official posted at Bhadla
Police Station, who purportedly demanded illegal
gratification of ₹500/- for not initiating legal proceedings
or detaining the vehicle. Upon the driver's expression of
financial inability, the demand was allegedly reduced to
₹100/- as part payment.
4. The complainant approached the ACB and lodged a
formal complaint. A trap was organized following due
procedure. During the trap proceedings, a police official
allegedly reiterated the demand by saying "Samji Lo",
["please understand"] and another explicitly demanded
₹200/-, which was paid by the driver. Upon receiving the
pre-arranged signal, the ACB team apprehended the
accused and completed formalities of seizure and arrest.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2242/2009 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025
undefined
5. A charge sheet was filed and charges were framed.
The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution
examined four witnesses and submitted nine documents.
Statements under Section 313 CrPC were recorded.
However, benefit of doubt having been extended, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated
18.08.2009, acquitted the accused. The present appeal
challenges the said order of acquittal.
6. Upon perusal of the evidence, I am of the view
that according to the original complaint, the demand was
raised by one Pravinsinh Jadeja whereas in course of the
trap, the accused persons against whom there was no
initial complaint whatsoever, came to be arrested and
prosecuted. It is also seen that the PW-1, the
complainant - Haritsinh and PW-2 - Premjibhai, the
owner and driver respectively who would have been
crucial in proving the demand, had turned hostile.
Therefore, I find that in the instant case not only is
there, no initial complaint against the present accused
persons but the original complainant had himself turned
hostile. In such circumstances, in my opinion, it would
be impossible to bring home the guilt of the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2242/2009 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025
undefined
The learned Trial Court in its finding particularly at
paras 27 to 31 of the impugned judgment has correctly
appreciated the evidence and has reached to the only
inevitable conclusion i.e. the innocence of the present
accused persons. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
7. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J)
MAYA
