[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Rajubha Natubha Jadeja on 24 April, 2026

                                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/1220/2008                                              CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

                                                                                                                           undefined




                                                                                   Reserved On   : 08/04/2026
                                                                                   Pronounced On : 24/04/2026

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                             R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1220 of 2008
                       ==========================================================
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                             Versus
                                                    RAJUBHA NATUBHA JADEJA
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR DJ BHATT(164) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                            CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.01.2008, passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Junagadh, in

Criminal Case No.1706 of 2000 for the offences punishable

under Sections 66(1)(B), 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition

Act, 1949, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this

appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court is that on 10.12.1999, while he was

performing his duties with "A" Division Police Station,

Junagadh, at about 11:40 hours, he has received Yadi from

control room stating the fact that as per information given

by Dy. Director Shri Joshi, F.S.L., Junagadh, one person

named Rajubha Ravubhai, Driver of the FSL has consumed

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

liquor without any pass or permit and he is not able to walk

and / or talk. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid

information, complainant has gone to the place of incident

and seen that respondent accused was in drunken condition

and he was not able to walk and / or talk properly.

Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the respondent-

accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence

was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-

sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. The charge

was framed against the accused person/s. The accused

pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

has examined 4 witnesses and also produced 6 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment as under:

                       Sr.                                                                                     Exhibit
                              Type of Evidence        Description / Witness Name
                       No.                                                                                     No.

Deposition of the original complainant,

Dilipbhai Ravatbhai

2 Oral Evidence Oral deposition of Dinesh Anil 10

3 Oral Evidence Oral deposition of Dr. Makwana 17

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

Sr. Exhibit Type of Evidence Description / Witness Name No. No.

Deposition of Rameshbhai Prabhudas

Vyas

Documentary

Evidence

Documentary

Evidence

Documentary

Evidence

Documentary

Evidence

Documentary

Evidence

Documentary

Evidence

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis

of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial

Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they

were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to

prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has

pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court

through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before

the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial

Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and

perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in

acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial

Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the

contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and

ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the

accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that

the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It

is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen

that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,

therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by

appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. As against that, learned advocate for the

respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by

the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned

trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the

accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal

by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by

the learned trial Court.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral

as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and

dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and

order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with

the Court :

8.1. While deciding the present appeal, this court has only

taken into consideration the judgment passed by Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Junagadh in Criminal Case No.1706

of 2000, in view of the fact that there was an office note that the entire file has been destroyed, therefore, only the

judgment that has been passed, dated 31.01.2008, has been

considered in this case.

8.2. The Magistrate Court has taken into consideration the

fact that no panchnama of the body of the accused was

taken at the FSL office where the accused was caught having

consumed liquor. As per the judgment dated 30.01.2008, it

has also come on record that, no panchnama was carried out

at the FSL office, where the accused was working as a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

driver and he was found to be in an intoxicated state. It

also transpires that, the prosecution has failed to comply

with the provisions of Bombay Prohibition (Medical

Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, in view of the fact

that the report that was produced vide Exhibit-19, clearly

states that the sample was sent to the FSL for investigation

on 10.12.1999 and the same was received by a Register A.D.

Post by FSL on 17.12.1999. In view of the said fact, the

prosecution has not complied with the provisions of the

Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test)

Rules, 1959, and the same has given effect as a result of the

test has to be considered doubtful.

8.3. Moreover, the procedure followed by the medical officers

to take the blood sample are also not as per the provisions of Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test)

Rules, 1959. In view of the fact that the sample did not

reach the testing officer within 7 days. Rule 4(2) of the

Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test)

Rules, 1959, clearly states that, the sample blood collected

shall be forwarded for test to the testing office either by post

or by a special messenger, so as to reach him within a

period of 7 days from the date of its collection and in the

present case, in view of the fact that the sample were sent

on 10.12.1999 and received on 17.12.1999, therefore in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

instant case, this mandatory provision has not been complied

with and therefore the learned Magistrate has rightly

acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under

Sections 66(1)(B), 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

8.4. Moreover, in the present case, the accused was working

in the FSL Department as a driver and the prosecution has

not been able to prove that by a telephonically message, the

officer of the FSL was called, the said fact has not been

stated in the station diary. At the alleged premises where

the accused was caught at the FSL office, no panchnama was

done and while conducting the medical checkup Rule 4(2) of

the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test)

Rules, 1959 have not been complied with.

9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show

any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that

the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest

illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court

below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above

view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the

Court below was completely justified in passing impugned

judgment and order.

10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence

connecting the accused with the incident and there are

contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.

In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that

the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive

of the accused behind the incident is not established. The

trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record

and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has

rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.

11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal

appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the

judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons

assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.

Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC

1417 wherein it is held as under:

"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93:

(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the

reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the

discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.

13. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or

demolished, the High Court should not disturb

the order of acquittal."

14. 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 the trial

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 trial 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.

15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of

Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has observed as under:

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.

Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s

State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:

"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1220/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."

16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to

interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

17. In view of above facts and circumstances of the

case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I

found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under

the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly

acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons

stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the

view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the