Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Girishkumar Savjibhai Parmar Sub Div. ... on 16 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1621 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--- NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GIRISHKUMAR SAVJIBHAI PARMAR SUB DIV. MAGISTRATE- RAJPIPLA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARNISH V DARJI(3705) 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 Mr. Soaham
Joshi for the Appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. Harnish
V. Darji 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 04.03.2008, passed
by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Narmada
at Rajpipla in Special Corruption Case No.5 of 2006 [Old Case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
No.10 of 2004], by which, the learned Judge was pleased to
acquit the present Respondent-original accused.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
3.1 It is the case of the prosecution that the Respondent-
accused was Public Servant and at the relevant time was
working as a Sub Divisional Magistrate (Prant Officer), Rajpipla.
3.2 That the complainant viz., Nareshbhai Ishwarbhai Vasava
is residing at Rajpipla and doing business of stamp vending
since last two years and having Licence No.5/2002. The friends
of the complainant viz.Kaushikbhai Jayantilal Vasava and
Mangabhai Shanubhai Vasava, both resident of Rajpipla are
also having Licence Nos.1/2002 and 6/2002 respectively, which
are valid upto 31st March. The said licence is required to be
renewed every year, for which, the renewal fee of Rs.5/- is paid
into the State Bank of India, Rajpipla Branch by way of Challan.
After depositing the fee, the complainant submitted an
application along with the photocopy of said Challan to the
Respondent-accused for renewal of the said licence. At that
time, the Respondent-accused asked for illegal gratification
amount of Rs.500/- each for renewal of the said licence totaling
to Rs.1,500/-. At that time, the complainant requested for
reducing said amount, however, the Respondent-accused did
not agree and, hence, the complainant agreed to give the said
amount. Since the complainant was not willing to give the
money to the respondent-accused, he went to A.C.B. Police
Station and lodged the complaint against the Respondent-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
accused on 28.04.2005. Accordingly, a trap was arranged.
3.3 During the course of conversation, the Respondent-
accused demanded illegal gratification and the Respondent-
accused was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe
amount in the presence of panchas. Accordingly, an FIR came
to be registered against the respondent-accused with A.C.B.
Office for the offence under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3.4 On the basis of complaint, the investigation was carried
out and on the basis of material collected against the
Respondent-accused and after obtaining sanction from the
Competent Authority, since the Investigating Officer found a
prima-facie case against the Respondent-accused, submitted a
chargesheet before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Rajpipla.
3.5 Since the case registered against the Respondents-
accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajpipla committed the
case to the Hon'ble District Court, Bharuch under Section 209
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3.6 On committal, the case was transferred and placed for
trial before the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.2,
Narmada at Rajpipla, who had initially framed charge against
the Respondents-accused vide Exh.6. The charge was read
over and explained to him, wherein he pleaded not guilty to
the charge and claimed to be tried.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
3.7 In order to bring home the charge leveled against the
accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 07
witnesses and relied upon their oral testimony, the details of
which have been given in paragraph no.5(A) of the impugned
Judgment and Order. The prosecution has also produced 20
documents and relied upon the contents of the same, details of
which have been given in paragraph no.5(B) of the impugned
Judgment and Order.
3.8 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. However, he has neither led any evidence nor did
they examine any witness in support of his defence.
3.9 At the end of trial, on appreciation, evaluation, analysis
and scrutiny of the evidence on record, the learned Special
Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Narmada at Rajpipla was pleased
to acquit the Respondent accused interalia stating 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- State has preferred the
present Appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/05/2025
undefined
5. It is the categorical deposition of P.W.-4, Mangabhai that
the complainant told the accused that he has brought the
money for the job, however, the accused did not pay any heed
to such statement of the complainant. Later on, when the
accused had left the room, the complainant on his own took
the tainted money and placed it inside a file, which was kept
on the table of the accused and thereafter, the complainant
rose from the seat and left the room. The P.W.-2 viz. Rajnikant
Karansinh Thakore, who was a panch-witness, on the contrary,
has deposed that there was a demand and the bribe money
was paid to the accused, who had kept the same in his pocket,
from where, it was recovered by the raiding party. Thus, there
is a material contradiction between the depositions of P.W.-2,
the panch-witness and P.W.-4, a natural witness, who
incidentally had accompanied the complainant. In such view
of the matter, in my opinion, the learned trial Court had
correctly concluded at Paragraphs- 13 and 14 of the impugned
judgment and acquittal order that the prosecution had failed to
prove the charge against the accused.
6. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Court forthwith. Bail bond, if any, stands cancel automatically.
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
