Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi on 16 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/288/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 288 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HASANBHAI VALIBHAI QURESHI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MIG MANSURI(444) 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. Vrunda
Shah for the Appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. Mig
Mansuri 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 30.10.2004, passed
by the learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, Surendranagar in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.2 of
1998, by which, the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/288/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
present Respondent-original accused.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
3.1 The case of the prosecution is that the respondent-
accused, Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi, was serving as Police
Head Constable with the Surendranagar Highway Police and
was responsible for regulating traffic and handling accident-
related matters along the Sayla-Rajkot Highway. On
03.10.1997, a truck bearing registration No. GJ-7-X-4894,
loaded with stone chips, was intercepted by the accused. The
driver and cleaner were allegedly detained by the accused,
who demanded a "royalty pass" or, in its absence, a sum of Rs.
500/-.
3.2 Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant approached
the ACB Office at Shahibaug, Ahmedabad. Pursuant to the
complaint, a trap was organized by PSI L.P. Solanki. After
completing procedural formalities and preparing the
preliminary panchnama, five currency notes of Rs. 100/-,
treated with anthracene powder, were given to the
complainant. The trap was executed near Sambhavnath Petrol
Pump, where the accused allegedly agreed to accept Rs. 500/-
after negotiation. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal, the
raiding party apprehended the accused and recovered the
tainted currency from his possession.
3.3 A complaint was registered as C.R. No. 3 of 1997 under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/288/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon conclusion of
investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the matter
proceeded as Special Case No. 2 of 1998. Owing to multiple
transfers of judges, trial was delayed until 2004. Ultimately,
the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendranagar,
vide judgment dated 30.10.2004, acquitted the accused.
3.4 Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present
appeal.
4. Upon a scrutiny of the evidence, it is seen that the
prosecution has been unable to bring home the guilt of the
accused for the following reasons:-
[A] According to various prosecution witnesses, there is no
consistent prosecution case as to what was the amount of
'bribe' that was demanded by the accused. The said amount
varies from Rs.500/- to Rs.3,000/-.
[B] The trap was actually set for Rs.1,500/-. Whereas,
according to complaint, the demand was for Rs.500/-. It is
inexplicable why for a trap in case of a demand of Rs.500/-, a
sum of Rs.1,500/- intainted money would be handed over to
the trap witnesses.
[C] It has also come on record that the raiding party was at a
distance of atleast 20 feet from the accused and therefore,
they were not privy to the exact conversation going on
between the accused and the complainant. In other-words, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/288/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
raiding party was not privy to the exact demand, which was
allegedly made by the accused.
[D] The prosecution case rests on the complainant's story
that the accused had demanded bribe from the driver and the
cleaner of the complainant's truck, which was intercepted by
the accused for carrying on stone-chips without royalty
permission. Therefore, the initial demand, on the basis of
which, the trap was set, was made to the driver and cleaner of
the complainant's vehicle. However, neither the driver of the
truck nor the cleaner were examined by the prosecution.
Therefore, there is fatal flaw in the prosecution case in proving
the demand allegedly made by the accused.
[E] Further, the accused had categorically explained in his
statement under Section-313 of the Cr.P.C. that due to the
truck not carrying the royalty documents for the stone-chips,
which were loaded on the truck, and the driver not having the
driving licence, the accused has proposed to fine the vehicle/
driver for a sum of Rs.500/- for which an entry was duly made
in the fine book. The aforesaid contention of the accused has
been corroborated by the P.W.-4 viz. Narendrasinh Harubha
Jhala. Therefore, adequate explanation has been forthcoming
from the accused to evidence the fact that the sum of Rs.500/,
which was allegedly demanded in the complaint, was received
by the accused in lieu of fine.
5. Taking an overall conspectus of the evidence as aforesaid
and the various other discrepancies noted by the learned Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/288/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
Court at Paragraphs 9 to 15 of the impugned judgment and
acquittal order, I find no reason to interdict the findings of the
learned Trial Court.
6. Therefore, the acquittal granted by the learned trial Court
deserves to be maintained and the present appeal deserved to
be dismissed.
7. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
