Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Babubhai Dahyabhai Patel on 16 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/99/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 99 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--- NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BABUBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 16/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Asmita
Patel for the Appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. Tejas P.
Satta for the Respondent.
2. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant-State under
Section-378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
challenging the judgment and order dated 29.10.2007, passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur in Special
(A.C.B.) Case No.112 of 1997, by which, the learned Judge was
pleased to acquit the present Respondent-original accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/99/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
3.1 It is the case of prosecution, that the Respondent-
accused at the relevant time was a Public Servant, working
with Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd.
3.2 That the complainant viz.Devrajbhai Mavabhai Patel, a
resident of Vasadal, Taluka : Dhanera wanted to make a bore
in his land bearing Survey No.121, situated at Vasadal sim. In
this connection, he made an application to the Deputy
Executive Engineer, G.E.B. Deesa. The complainant was
instructed to submit a certificate from the Water Resources
Corporation. Therefore, on 01.01.1997, the complainant met
the Respondent-accused and submitted his application for
obtaining 'No Objection Certificate'. The Respondent-accused
allegedly demanded Rs.1,000/- as a 'bribe' for giving 'No
Objection Certificate'. At that time, the complainant gave
Rs.850/- and for remaining amount i.e.Rs.150/-, it was decided
to be given whenever the complainant gets 'No Objection
Certificate'. Since the complainant was not willing to give bribe
money to the Respondent-accused, he went to A.C.B. Police
Station, Banaskantha and lodged a complaint against the
Respondent-accused before Police Inspector, Mr. H. B. Chavda.
After recording the complaint, the raiding officer arranged a
trap. During the course of conversation, the Respondent-
accused demanded illegal gratification and the respondents-
accused caught red-handed accepting bribe amount in the
presence of panchas on 01.01.1997 between 17:20 p.m. and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/99/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
17:30 p.m. Accordingly, an FIR being C.R. No.1 of 1997 came
to be registered against the Respondent-accused with A.C.B.
Office of Banaskantha for the offence under Sections-7, 13(1),
(d), 1, 2, 3, and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3.3 On the basis of complaint, the investigation was carried
out and necessary materials were collected against the
Respondent-accused. Since the Investigating Officer found a
prima-facie case against the Respondent-accused, he obtained
sanction from the Competent Authority and submitted
chargesheet before the Competent Court, Palanpur on
11.08.1997, which came to be numbered as Special Case
No.112 of 1997.
3.4 The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track
Court, Palanpur was pleased to frame charge vide Exh.19. The
charge was read over and explained to them, wherein, he
pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
3.5 In order to bring home the charge leveled against the
accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 5
witnesses and relied upon their oral testimony, the details of
which have been given in paragraph no.3 of the impugned
Judgment and Order i.e.Prosecution Witness No.1 viz.,
Devrajbhai Mavabhai Patel (Complainant) at Exh. 65,
Prosecution Witness No.2 viz.Parthibhai Hirabhai Atatar (Panch
Witness) at Exh.68, Prosecution Witness No.3 viz. Dilip Kapilray
Vaishnava (Raid Officer) at Exh.83, Prosecution Witness No.4
viz., Nadirkhan Jamalkhan Pathan (Investigating Officer-Police
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/99/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
Inspector) at Exh.84 and Prosecution Witness No.5 viz.
Vanrajsinh Juvansinh Gohil (Investigating Officer-Police
Inspector) at Exh.88.
3.6 The prosecution has also produced 22 documents and
relied upon the contents of the same, details of which have
been given in paragraph no.3 of the impugned Judgment and
Order.
3.7 After recording of the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses was over, the Court below explained to the
Respondent-accused the circumstances appearing against him
in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and recorded his
further statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. In his further statement, he denied the case of the
prosecution in entirety. According to him, he has been roped in
a false case.
3.8 At the end of trial, on appreciation, evaluation, analysis
and scrutiny of the evidence on record, the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Palanpur was pleased to
acquit the respondent-accused under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) 1, 2,
3 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 the guilt of the
Respondent - accused.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred the
present Appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/99/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
5. It is the specific case of the prosecution, according to
complaint of Devrajbhai Mavabhai Patel, the P.W.-1 is that the
P.W.-1 was in need of a 'No Objection Certificate' from the
Water Resources Corporation, in which, the accused was
working as a Deputy Executive Engineer. It is the further case
of the complainant that the accused had demanded a total
sum of Rs.1,000/- as a 'bribe' for issuance of the said
certificate of which Rs.850/- was paid on 01.01.1997 and the
balance amount of Rs.150/- was to be paid at later date. The
trap is said to have been set for the said amount of Rs.150/-.
While it is not in doubt that the trap succeeded, in the sense
that, a sum of Rs.150/- came to be paid by the complainant to
the accused, for which, the accused was caught red-handed, it
will be seen from the evidence that P.W.-1 - complainant had
turned hostile. The P.W.-1 has categorically deposed, right
from the inception that a sum of Rs.150/-, which was given by
him to the accused, was not in the nature of a 'bribe', but
towards dues owed to the accused by the brother-in-law of the
complainant viz.Arjanbhai, who has been also examined as a
Defence Witness No.1. In his deposition, Arjanbhai as a
Defence Witness, has also deposed that he owed a sum of
Rs.150/- to the accused, which money was sent to the accused
through the complainant. In view of the categorical deposition
of P.W.-1 - complainant at Exh.65 and the Defence Witness at
Exh.93, it is clear that though there is acceptance of Rs.150/-
by the accused, but the said amount is not in lieu of any bribe
that was demanded by the accused.
6. In such view of the matter, the learned trial Court had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/99/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
rightly acquitted the accused person. Consequently, the
present appeal dismissed.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
