Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Punjabhai Balabhai Garchar on 14 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 600 of 2008
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PUNJABHAI BALABHAI GARCHAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 14/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned APP, Mr. Soaham Joshi for the Appellant - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the Respondent.
2. The present appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Junagadh in Special (ACB) Case N0.8 of 1991.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Kanabhai Karsanbhai residing at Village Karamsadi Singariya, Tal. Mangrol land bearing Survey Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Fri May 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 14:04:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025 undefined No.82, admeasuring 5 Vighas at Vokala. Survey no.83 which was situated near land of the complainant is Government vested land, and the complainant made an application for acquiring the same. But there was objection of the Gram Panchayat and the Talati cum Mantri Punjabhai Rabari was informed to file report and he made a report which was filed in the Mamlatdar Office, Mangrol.
3.1 On 16.08.1990, when the complainant made a second application for the same, the accused met with complainant and complainant asked the accused for help in the said application. In reply, the accused demanded Rs.2000/- for the same. On bargaining, the accused fixed the same at Rs. 1500/- for which complainant agreed to pay within 15 to 20 days to the accused. 3.2 However, on 28.08.1990, when the complainant went to the Mamlatdar office for permit of kerosene, accused met him in the compound of the Mamlatdar office. At that time, complainant asked the accused as to how many days will be required for the said work, to which the accused replied that first of all, the complainant will Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Fri May 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 14:04:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025 undefined have to pay and thereafter, he would sent the proposal to the office of the Mamlatdar. Therefore, the complainant said that one week may be required for collecting the amount. On 5.09.1990 and 6.09.1990, the accused came to Mangrol. The complainant after bargaining, said that some part of the amount will paid by him after some time. At the end of their discussion, the accused asked the complainant to come with Rs.1,250/- and rest of Rs.250/- may be sent at the convenience of the complainant. On 28.08.1990, the complainant felt that he should not give the bribe. Therefore the complainant had approached the ACB Police station at Junagadh on 04.09.1990. After lodging the complainant, P.I. ACB, Raghuvirsinh Chudasama, Junagadh started preparation of trap to decoy the accused. After following necessary procedure of law, the trap was arranged by the P.I. Junagadh. After recording the serial numbers of the currency notes and making the complainant understand the use of Anthracene powder by doing experiments with Anthracene powder and after carrying out the introduction parade with all the members of the raiding party, panch members and complainant with each other, whole test procedure was Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Fri May 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 14:04:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025 undefined completed. Thereafter, the complainant and panch witness went to the Pan shop where accused had promised to meet. Then the complainant met with the accused and gave Rs.1,250/- to the accused which was accepted by him and the accused put the notes in the pocket of his trousers. Upon receiving the fixed signal, the panch witness and the members of the raiding party including PI ACB, Junagadh, went to the Pan shop and asked the panch witness as to what had happened. To which, the panch witness narrated the whole incident. The accused had accepted money of bribe from the complainant, in the presence of the panch. Bribe amount of Rs.1,250/- was recovered from the accused hence, strains of Anthracene Powder was found on the hand of the accused at the time of conducting the experiment of ultra violet light. PI, ACB, Junagadh, tallied the serial numbers of currency notes recovered from accused with the numbers of notes at the time of drawing the preliminary panchnama.
3.3 Thereafter, seizure memo was given to the accused. Thereafter, the case was registered against the accused after getting the necessary sanction from the competent Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Fri May 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 14:04:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025 undefined authority. The bribe amount was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused person. Thereafter, the case was registered against the accused. The ACB, Junagadh arrested the accused and produced him before the Court. The ACB, Junagadh after obtaining proper sanction from the Government and after recording evidence of relevant witnesses, prepared charge-sheet against the accused and submitted the same before the Court of Learned Judge. The case being exclusively sessions triable, was committed to the Special Court, Junagadh, as per Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. which in turn transferred the case to the concerned court for its final disposal. The accused was produced before the Court and after verifying whether the accused was given all the necessary police papers or not, the learned Special Judge, framed charges against the accused person to which the plea of the accused person was recorded, wherein he denied his involvement in the offence. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined many witnesses and various documentary evidences. However, the learned Special Judge, Junagadh, after hearing both the parties vide his judgment and order dated 31.07.2007 acquitted the accused of the offences with which he was Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Fri May 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 14:04:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025 undefined charged. Hence, the present appeal.
4. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the members of the raiding party i.e. Panch members and complainant had gone to the Pan shop owned by PW-3 where the accused was supposed to have a rendezvous. The complainant after waiting for more than three hours at the said Pan shop had allegedly given the accused a sum of Rs.1,250/- which was accepted by the accused. However, from the evidence on record, it is found that except the complainant, PW-1 and Panch witness - Girish Prabhashanker Bhatt, the PW-2, the most relevant witness namely Karshanbhai - PW-3, the owner of the Pan shop, where the entire alleged incident had taken place, had turned hostile. It is seen from the deposition of PW-3 that PW-3 had categorically denied the entire incident stating that no such event had taken place in his Pan shop. Thus, the neutral witness has not supported the prosecution case.
5. This aspect of the matter has been meticulously appreciated by the Trial Court at paragraph nos. 12 and 21 to 22 of the impugned judgment. Therefore, I am of Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Fri May 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 14:04:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/600/2008 ORDER DATED: 14/05/2025 undefined the opinion that the learned Trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of the complainant is more dramatic than realistic, particularly, in the context of the contradictory evidence of PW-3 to 5.
6. In such view of the matter, the findings of the learned Trial Court, being a plausible view, no case has been made out by the prosecution to substitute such plausible view with another view which may be taken by me. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Notice is discharged.
7. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J) MAYA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Fri May 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 14:04:48 IST 2025