[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Shri Rameshbhai Fogatbhai Rohit on 18 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2316 of 2006
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHRI RAMESHBHAI FOGATBHAI ROHIT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP for the Appellant
MR KB ANANDJIWALA(134) for the Respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 18/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Vadodara in Special (ACB) Case No.5 of 2002 for the
offences under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal as provided under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) inter alia
challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of
the respondent accused.
2. The prosecution case is that the complainant is residing
at Parth Bhumi Vibhag-I, Makarpura, GIDC Main Road,
Vadodara and doing business of STD PCD and machine
repairing, account. of his and business, complainant is used to
go at various cities of Vadodara as well as within the State of
Gujarat. As such complainant was used to go Himatnagar,
where he came in contact with one Dilipbhai Kodarbhai
Maheta and said Dilipbhai was doing business of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
transport/traveling passengers of friend of by his friend Shri
Ambalal TATA SUMO who happens to be Patel of
Himmatnagar. Thus, said Shri Dilipbhai and complainant used
to meet repeatedly and friendship was developed amongst
them due hence to the repeated rounds of business. Thus,
they are used to meet at Vadodara also, and four to five
months before said Dilipbhai Maheta come to the house of
complainant and acked for has lending money to the tune of
Rs.50,000/- for some days as he was facing acute money
crisses in business and had also given assurance to return As
money within a period of one week. such by showing
difficulties and by giving assurance of returning money within
a period of 8 days, said Shri Dilipkumar has demanded
Rs.50,000/- from complainant and complainant lent him
Rs.50,000/- on 13.3.2001 by executing a promissory note.
2.1 Thereafter, on account of this transaction, dispute has
arisen between the complainant complainant has and filed
said Dilipkumar complaint The before Commissioner of Police,
Vadodara and notice was given to said Dilipbhai through
advocate according to which his a private complaint was
registered before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Vadodara and inquiry of the same was handed over to accused
Shri N.G. Vaghela, Police Sub Inspector, Makarpura Station.
Thereafter, complainant Police called by Police wrong accused
по. 2 to was the Makarpura Station and scolded by saying
complaint has been filed that a against Shri Dilipbhai and he
has got false promissory note and he will will put him behind
bars. It is further the that after case of prosecution giving
explanation by complainant that he has really paid Rs.50,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
to said Dilipbhai, and wants to recover said amount, the
accused no. 2 has stated to spend Rs.20,000/-, but at the
relevant point of time complainant was having only Rs.1,500/-,
he has given the same to accused no. 2, which was accepted
by Thereafter, accused no. as complainant. and 2 stated has
the him. requested that settled fact Rs.20,000/- is too
excessive, it was at Rs.15,000/- and decided to pay Rs.10,000/-
balance amount was completion first, and after Rs.10,000/- of
recovery. to be given The first 7.8.2001 at at was also to be
given on was about 5.00 to 6.00 O'clock in the evening
Makarpura Police Chowky and it decided to give said amount
to Ramesh further in the absence of accused case of his writer
no.2. prosecution It is that complainant was not ready and
willing to illegal gratification, he approached F.I. Se give
before Shri I.B.Vyas, ACB Police Station, who recorded
complaint.
2.2 On the basis of aforesaid complaint, arrangement of
panchas were made and raid carried out. It is further the case
was of prosecution that during raid, respondents accused was
caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification from
complainant.
2.3 The police recorded witnesses and recovered the
muddamal notes and investigation evidence חתthe statement
of currency of the sufficient conclusion and after acquiring
against the accused, sanction Was obtained and charge filed
before the Court of necessary sheet was learned Special 13(2)
of the Judge, Vadodara for the alleged offences under 12,
13(1)(d), and Prevention of Corruption Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the
complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the
witnesses, collected relevant evidence and drawn various
Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of
proving the offence. After having found material against the
respondents accused, charge-sheet came to be led in the
Court of learned JMFC concerned. As jurisdiction to try the
offence is exclusively lying with Special Court, the offence was
committed to the Special Court concerned as provided under
section 209 of the Code.
4. Upon committal of the case,the Special Court framed
charge at Exh.5 against the respondents accused for the
aforesaid offence. The respondents accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has
examined various witnesses and also produced various
documentary evidence before the learned Special Court, more
particularly described in para 3 of the impugned judgment
and order.
6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution,
the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances
appearing in the evidence to the respondents accused so as to
obtain their explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the
Code. In the further statement, the respondents accused
denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against
them as false and further stated that they are innocent and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
false case has been led against them. After hearing both the
sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the
prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents
accused of the offences, for which they were tried, as the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. I have heard learned APP appearing for the applicant
State and have minutely examined oral as well as
documentary evidence led during trial and referred by learned
APP during the course of hearing.
8. To overturn impugned judgment and order, learned APP
would submit that the learned Special Court erred in holding
that the prosecution has failed to make out the case. She
would further submit that in order to prove the charges
levelled against the accused, the prosecution had examined
various witnesses and produced various documentary
evidence. However, the learned Special Court has acquitted
the respondents accused without properly appreciating oral
and documentary evidence and thereby, has committed gross
error. She would further submit that in a deposition of the
complainant, it is at least proved that accused Ramesh has
accepted the bribe money and having come to know that trap
was arranged, he has thrown the money in the pit filled with
water. She would further submit that shadow panch No.2 had
found tainted money from the pit filled with water and later on
after recovering the tainted money, accused Ramesh was
taken into police van and while examining his hands through
ultra-violate light, the presence of anthrecin powder was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
found. This evidence is led with the earlier evidence that
accused No.2 Navalsinh Vaghela, PSI Makarpura GIDC Police
Station had demanded ₹20,000 from the complainant for
facilitating recovery of dues from certain individuals against
whom the complainant had filed a private complaint, the
inquiry of which had been entrusted by the learned JMFC to
the said police station. She would further submit that the
testimony of the complainant was supported by PW2, the trap
officer. Though the shadfow panch who accompanied the
complainant expired before examination, the testimony of the
complainant remained unshaken in cross-examination and is
liable to be accepted. She would further submit that recovery
and acceptance of the tainted money is proved which lead
presumption of demand under the Prevention of Corruption
Act. While analyzing the impugned judgment and order,
learned APP would submit that the learned Court acquitted the
accused on speculative findings and raised question itself and
answered the same that entire evidence is highly improbable
and therefore, she submits that acquittal of the accused needs
to be reversed.
8.1 Upon above submission, learned APP prays to allow the
criminal appeal and reverse the impugned judgment and order
and thereby, convict the respondents accused.
8.2 Though served, none appears for the respondents
accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
9. Before examining the merits of the arguments canvassed
by learned APP in background of the facts of the case, it is
apposite to refer settled principles of law on scope of
interference in acquittal appeal.
10. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as
under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from
order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach
its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379,
Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the
order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is
desirable that the High Court should give proper
weight and consideration to the view of the Trial
Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused,
the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt
and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a
finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the
advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that
if the main grounds on which the lower Court has
based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable
and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and
effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court
should not disturb the order of acquittal."
11. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while
dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
the learned Special Court is found to be perverse, the
acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High
Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat
circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned Special
Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay
its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it
had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
12. Keeping in mind the above proposition of law and the
scope of interference in the acquittal appeal on appreciating
the facts of the case, if we take up the charger framed against
the accused, the complainant was called by the accused at
Makarpura GIDC Police Station and demanded bribe to put
behind Mr. Dilip Mehta and Uday Panchal, the persons
against whom the complainant had filed private complaint
before the learned JMFC, Vadodara and inquiry of which has
been given to the accused. The charge itself is silent about
demand of bribe. If we continue with the charge, it appears
that the acceptance and recovery of the tainted money raises
a presumption of demand under the Prevention of Corruption
Act. However, two prior trap attempts had remained
unsuccessful, and the complainant thereafter proceeded on
his own to the location along with Panch No. 1, without
informing the trap officers, and without any pre-arranged
third trap. The tainted currency recovered from the water-
filled pit was found partly wet and partly dry, with no
independent witnesses present at the time of recovery. The
ultraviolet light examination of the accused was also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
conducted in the absence of any independent witnesses, and
the prosecution remained silent as to on which specific note
the impression of the accused was found.
13. Further, the learned Special Court, upon considering the
totality of evidence, found that except for the statement of the
complainant, no independent or corroborative evidence was
available, that the tainted money was not recovered from the
person of the accused but from a pit, and that it was highly
improbable that the complainant would pay ₹20,000 as bribe
to recover a sum of equivalent or lesser value, particularly
when the inquiry was being conducted under the supervisory
jurisdiction of the learned JMFC under Section 202 CrPC,
leaving no independent scope for the accused to facilitate any
such recovery. Accordingly, the learned Special Court found
no sufficient grounds to convict the accused. The findings of
the learned Sessions Court is at para 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 27. 28, which read as under:-
"15. On this point, the panch no.1 is not examined as
reported dead and hence no exidence of eyewitness is
available. It is only the raiding officer who was told by
the panch no.1 narrating the incident. On this point
the accused have objected to being inadmissible in
evidence as hearsay and which is granted and that
such part is inadmissible, which the panch no.1 has
witnessed in presence of and with complair ant only.
The defence has cross-examined the panch witness
who has denied the panchanama was prepared by the
trapping officer, Shri Vyas, but has stated that " it was
written, as we mentioned. Or if that is so the evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
of trapping officer corroborating the evidence of
complainant is the important factor. Hence, in
absence of the evidence of panch no.1, let us see
whether the evidence of the complainant inspires
confidence or not.
17. More over, the defence has examined the I.O. shri
D.B.Raolji, who has carried out the investigation but
as per the evidence of the tra ping offieer and him he
was all along with him during the first panchanama
and the whole raid. The defence has examined him as
a witness of the whole trap. From the evidence of the
investigating officer present at the time of raid, it
creats a clear doubt about the version given by the
complainant and the trapping officer, but his evidence
is inconsistence with the evidence of the trapping
officer and the complainant. The evidence shows a
clear negligence on the part of the investigating
officer as giving different version than the records.
Hence from the evidence it can not be said that the
investigation is carried out fairly and impartial and
seems to be a nature of mechanical one. It does not
seem that the investigation officer has tried to verify
the whole procedure of raid and its legality. From the
evidence of the investigation officer it raises doubt
whether he was present during the raid and hence in
such circumstances when the character and the
evidence of the complainant whose evidence in this
case is of paramount importance does not inspire
confidence the evidence of the trapping officer and
the IO, who happens to be the witness of the whole
raid could have been important in corroboration: The
Zevidence of trapping officer can also be believed if it
is not inconsistent with the eye witness of the raid.
19. There are many major inconsistency in the
evidence of the Investigating officer that he stated on
oath that the complainant and the panch no. I had
gone with them in a jeep. More over it is stated by
him on oath that the panchanama of running
character was written outside the makarpura police
station where the complainant and the panch no. I
met them and narrated what happened inside the
police station and there it was decided where to go. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
is stated by the Investigating officer that the accused
no.2 has told the complainant and the panch to meet
at 'Susan char rasta This witness who happens to be
the eye witness of the raid and the 1.0 of the case
stated on oath that he does not know who has caught
accused no.1. and does not know who has collected
the trap money from the pit of water. He stated on
oath that almost all the notes were wet of water while
the complainant and the panch no.2 stated that about
3 to 4 notes had become wet in the pit of water. He
also stated on oath that the the trap money was
searched and collected after Rameshbhai was made to
sit in the metador. This witness also stated on oath
that he has not investigated and inquired how and
when the topic of corruption started after giving rs
1500. The investigating officer in his deposition has
stated in his cross examination that it is true that no
person, whose statements have been recorded has
stated that the accused has asked the corruption
money from the complainant.
22, Now, coming on the point of acceptance, the
complainant deposed before this Court that" then I
stated the facts to the ACB officials and then went to
the 'Susan char rasta with panch no.1 on his schooter.
Thereafter the ACB staff has taken their respective
position around the Susan char rasta. Thereafter, the
accused no.1, shri Ramesh, had come on his Bullet
motor cycle and parked at the char rasta and I told
him, let us have a cigarette, then he said, 'no', but
asked whether he has brought the meney? I replied
yes. Then Rameshbhai said, then, give me, then I
removed from my pocket, the powdered note with my
right hand and gave him. Thereafter, shri Ramesh
asked how many rupees? Then I replied, count it, if it
is not trusted, it is 10,000. then Shri Rameshbhai has
started counting takir the note in his hand, at that
time I made the signal/gesture and of which shri
Rameshbhai knew and he started running throwing
the currency notes in the pit of water lying side of the
road. The ACB officials have caught shri Rameshbahi,
while unning and made him sit in the metador. The
ACB official has told panch no.2, to bring the money
from the pit of water.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
23. The hands of shri Rameshbhai was checked in
ultra violet rays and the signs of ettering was traced.
The body of person of shri Rameshbhai was checked
and the materials, driving license badge no. and
identity card was recovered, which was mentioned in
the seizure memo. The notes were the same as noted
in the panchnama. Complainant on his cross
examination stated that " it is true that he did not
have conversed to reach to Sona park with the ACB
staff from police station to Sona park" "It is true that
he had not been given the instruction from Shri Vyas
from ACB office, or from the point where metador was
standing." On cress examination, the defence has not
evolved anything but the complainant has boldly
answered the question. Even on asking the
complainant stated that the ACB staff was not
standing at the distance of 10 feet but at the distance
of 20 feet. It is also replied that the he need not to
state where the money is as shri Vyas, also noted
where the money was." it is also stated that it is true
that there does not arise the question for shri Vyas,
where the money was.
24. On this point the panch no.2, shri Bipendrasinh
Chatrasinh Chauhan stated on ooth that "thereafter as
per the instruction of shri Vyas, the complainant and
the panch no.1 went on his schooter and we, the
panch no.2 and the members of raiding party went in
metador to Susan Char Rasta. Where the complainant
has parked his schooter at the bench of cement, on
the left to the GIDC road, from Susan road, where the
person with the maroon jerky has been standing, We
the raiding staff stood nearby where the complainant
and the panch no.1 has been standing at a distance.
The complainant was talking with the accused. And as
the signal/gesture was made by the complainant, they
were rushing to the them, the person with maroon
colored jersey started running towards Makarpura
bus stand on the right. The accused was chased by
them at about 50 feet distance from the place he
started running, the accused has thrown the
muddamal notes to the pits of water. Then the
accused was introducted to the ACB raiding staff and
made to sit in the metador, and asked about the note
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
when he said that, on being caught he has thrown the
notes to this pit of water at the side of the road. It is
stated by this panch no.2 in his evidence that
thereafter they all went to the place stated by shri
Rameshbhi, where the notes were thrown by him. And
the notes were recovered by sanch no. 2, from the pit
of water at the instruction of shri Vyas.
25. The place of a raid is important factor as the raid
was conducted in the open place/At is not the c'osed
place from where the raiding party member can not
see what happening except the conversation between
Shri Rameslibhai and the complainanı and the panch
no.1. The complainant stated that mr. Vyas knew
where the money was thrown. Whereas panch no.2
states that they all went to the pit of water as shown
by shri Ramesh, where he has thrown the money.
On this point shri I B. Vyas stated in his examination
in chief, that" on asking about the notes accepted in
corruption, he has stated to be thrown away in the pit
of water while running. This being inadmissible an
evidence as stated to the police officer while
investiga..on u/s 162 cr.p.c.
26. From the evidence of the trapping officer it
appears that he did not know where the notes were?
Which is contradicting with the evidence of the
complainant. In such circumstances wil the railing
staf could have seen the complainant giving the
muddamal note to shri Ramesh and and could have
seen mr. Ramesh throwing away the notes while
running, It is natural that on getting the call of
signal/gesture, the persons or raiding party is
believed to be attentive of the pre decided
signal/gesture to come at any time and also visible of
actions of paying and receiving. It is also to be noted
that the accused no.I started running as he saw the
raiding party rushing to him and throw the notes and
hence the moment of throwing could have been
witnessed by the raiding party. Looking at the
situation, coming to know of the raid, the person does
not think to throw the notes to the pit of water but is
the natural action to throw the notes and it can lie at
any place and even in the pit of water.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
27. It appears quite uneven and unacceptable to say
that the raiding party members did not know, wher,
the notes were throw a by the accused. Hence, not
mentioning of anybody stating that they have seen the
notes thrown by the accused no.2, raises doubt. It is
admitted by the trapping officer shri Vyas that the
place of raid is an open place. It is also admitted by
shri Vyas that "he has not seen who and when the
notes were thrown in the pit of water."
28. Now from the above, it is the complainast, whose
evidence is material, and which should be totally
reliable as the eye witness of the raid is not available
being dead. More over, the meeting of the accused
no.f is also not corroborated. In the present case the
actual demand of money and the meeting at susan
char rasta after Aelephoning the accused no.2, is not
corroborated by any evidence. More over the evidence
of the investigating officer is totally damaging the
prosecution case as being the eye-witness has stated
against the prosecution story and shows the clear cut
negligence on the part of the officer in investigation."
14. In regards to the aforesaid findings, the learned APP
failed to make out that the findings recorded by the learned
Court are contrary to the evidence on record since the
provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act lies with
the presumption and procedural compliance, it has to be
strictly observed. Meaning thereby, the Prevention of
Corruption Act places high importance on strict procedural
compliance and statutory presumptions to ensure that both
the demand and acceptance of an undue advantage are
established before corruption is presumed.
15. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no evidence
against accused No.2 Navalsinh, PSI except bare words of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
complainant.
16. So far as accused No.1 Ramesh is concerned, according
to the complainant, he has given tainted money to accused
No.1 on demand, however, at that time, except shadow panch
No.1, no other witness has accompanied the complainant.
Unfortunately, the shadow panch No.1 has expired and
therefore, his testimony would not be available. It may not be
fatal to the prosecution provided that the deposition of the
complainant found germane with pre and post supporting
evidence. In the present case, as discussed herein above,
either pre or post evidence are not supporting the case of the
prosecution. Except the complainant, no other has seen
accused Ramesh accepting the bribe amount. Even, tainted
money is not found from the possession of accused Ramesh,
but it is found from the pit filled with water. The trap officer
has also accepted that bribe money was found from the pit
filled with water and no independent person /witness was
present at the time when accused Ramesh has alleged to have
accepted the tainted money. The aforesaid analysis of the
evidence do not inspire conscience of the learned Court.
Under the circumstances, even even framing of the charge
itself is defective.
17. It can be noticed that cardinal principles of criminal
jurisprudence behold that in an acquittal appeal, even if two
view is possible, the view taken by the learned trial Court
cannot be substituted by reversing the acquittal into the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2316/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2026
undefined
conviction unless finding of the learned trial Court found to be
perverse, or could to have been said contrary to the material
on record or demonstrably wrong or unsustainable and
manifestly erroneous [See: Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State
of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225].
18. In the instant case, learned APP could not able to point
out that how the finding recorded by the learned Special
Court is patently illegal, perverse or contrary to the material
on record or against the settled principles of law or is
palpably wrong or manifestly erroneous. Worth to note that
the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial operates in
favour of the accused till he found guilty. The presumption
would be doubled in a case where accused is acquitted after
full-fledge trial from the charges levelled against him.
19. The reasons stated herein above indicate that no case is
made out by the appellant State warranting interference with
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
20. Resultantly, present appeal fails and same deserves to
be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
21. Bail bond, if any, taken during the pendency of appeal, is
cancelled.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
