Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Bipinbhai Khojabhai Parmar on 16 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/217/2007 ORDER DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 217 of 2007
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BIPINBHAI KHOJABHAI PARMAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DJ BHATT(164) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 16/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned APP for the
Appellant - State and Mr. D. J. Bhatt, learned advocate
for the Respondents.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 13.11.2006 passed
by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions
Judge, Presiding officer, Fast Track Court no.4, Godhara
at Panchmahal in Special (ACB) Case No.04 of 2004,
whereby the Respondent(s) accused came to be acquitted
for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) &
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the
Appellant-State has preferred this Appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/217/2007 ORDER DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
3. The facts of the case are narrated in the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal in great detail. The
same are not disputed by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Appellant -State.
Therefore, the same are not repeated herein but merely
relied upon by the parties and this Court.
4. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen that the
prosecution has failed to prove that the trap had
actually succeeded. Apart from the fact that the amount
allegedly demanded was only Rs.20/-, there is conflicting
evidence whether the said tainted Rs.20/- note was
actually recovered, because the decoy, Ghanshyam Pandit
had deposed that inspite of searching "for the same for
30 to 35 minutes, the currency note could not be found
on the date of the incident i.e. 18.10.2003". Similarly, the
panch witness - Bhanuprasad has deposed that "inspite
of 1½ to 2 hours search, the currency note could not be
found". Only, the other panch witness Fuljibhai has
supported the prosecution. However, the said panch
witness has deposed that the currency note was
recovered immediately on 21.10.2003. Thus, there is gross
variance in the testimonies of the aforesaid three
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/217/2007 ORDER DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
witnesses and therefore, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove that the trap had
succeeded and the tainted note was recovered. It is also
seen from the depositions that both the accused persons
have stated to have escaped the scene when the trap
was set and therefore also, the prosecution case has
failed in proving the guilt of the accused. There are
numerous other discrepancies and faults with the
prosecution case i.e. panch witness Bhanuprasad had
categorically testified that he has been accompanied by
the police constable from the ACB department and
therefore such witness must be said to be tutored. In
summation, the demand and acceptance has not been
proved, inasmuch as, the accused persons have not been
caught red handed and therefore, I am at one with the
conclusion of the learned Trial Court that the prosecution
has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
5. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J)
MAYA
