Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Merubhai Bhanjibhai Vaniya on 16 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 727 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO: Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MERUBHAI BHANJIBHAI VANIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 16/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, 2 nd FTC, Gondal (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case no. 7/1997 on 19.09.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred Page 1 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined to as "the PC Act" for short).
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 The accused was working as the Registrar (Marriage) at the Office of the Sub-Registrar (Marriage), Gondal, District Rajkot and was a public servant. The complainant -
Pravinchandra Harjivandas Ganatra, Assistant Director, ACB, Rajkot had received secret information that the accused was demanding an amount ranging from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for registration of marriage and giving the certified copy of the marriage registration certificate to parties and decided to arrange for a decoy trap. Samirbhai Hematbhai Bavishi a resident of Rajkot was called and was explained about the decoy trap to be arranged on 24.02.1993 and he agreed to cooperate for the trap.
2.2 The panch witnesses were also called to the ACB Office Page 2 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined at Rajkot and on 24.02.1993, the panch witnesses and the decoy Samirbhai Hematbhai Bavishi were introduced to each other and the Panchnama Part-I was drawn and the signatures of all the necessary parties were taken. As decided they left in Ambassador Car of the decoy bearing registration no. GJ-3-B-9269 and went to the Circuit House at Gondal. The complainant - Pravinchandra Harjivandas Ganatra gave two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each and one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 50/- and Head Constable - Narayanbhai Laluji, under instructions, smeared anthracene powder on all the currency notes. The characteristics of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp were explained and the demonstration was done and Head Constable - Narayanbhai Laluji folded the currency notes smeared with anthracene powder and placed it in the left top pocket of the jabbha of the decoy Samirbhai Hematbhai Bavishi. The necessary documents for the registration of marriage were prepared and instructions were given and they all left at around 16.00 hours in the Ambassador Car and went to the Office of the Sub-Registrar Page 3 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined (Marriage). The panch witness and the decoy entered into the chamber at 16.09 hours and gave the documents to the accused who gave a receipt of Rs. 3/- and the decoy gave a currency note of Rs. 5/- to the accused who placed it in the left drawer of the table. The accused thereafter asked the decoy what he would give for the marriage celebration and stated that some people give Rs. 151/- but he could give whatever he wanted. The decoy took the two tainted currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each with his right hand and gave it to the accused who took it and placed it in the left open drawer of his table. The accused thereafter told the decoy to go and have tea and he would prepare the certified copy to give him. The decoy and the panch witness came out and gave the predetermined signal and the members of the raiding party came and the accused was caught red handed. The procedure was undertaken and the Panchnama Part-II was drawn and the offence was registered under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act and registered at Rajkot ACB Police Station, C.R. No. 2 of 1993.
Page 4 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after receipt of the order of sanction for prosecution and completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court, Gondal and the case was registered as Special Case no. 7/1997. 2.4 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 40 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 41 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.5 The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced 7 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was Page 5 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence, refused to step into the witness box or lead evidence and stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of four witnesses and the seven documentary evidences produced by the prosecution and even though it was clearly brought on record that the accused has demanded money and has accepted the amount of illegal gratification and there was ample material on record to show that there was demand Page 6 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined and acceptance of money, but the learned Trial Court without giving any valid legal and proper reasons has disbelieved the version of the prosecution. The impugned judgment and order is perverse and suffers from legal as well as factual error apparent on the record of the case and hence, the appeal must be allowed and the impugned judgment and order must be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the appellant State. Though served, the respondent no. 1 has not remained present either in person or through an advocate . Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja has taken this court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has stated that the complainant - Pravinchandra Harjivandas Ganatra was the Assistant Director of ACB Police Station, Rajkot and he had received secret information that the accused was demanding amounts of illegal gratification and Page 7 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined had accordingly laid the decoy trap. The decoy from Rajkot was called and he was explained about the decoy trap and he had consented to cooperate in the matter and accordingly, the panch witnesses were called and in the presence of the panch witness during the trap, the amount of illegal gratification was accepted by the accused. All the ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery have been proved and the amount has been recovered from the drawer of the table of the accused and even though all the evidence points towards the guilt of the accused, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent. The impugned judgment and order is bad, perverse and illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in para 11 and 12 with regard to the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with acquittal appeals in the case of P. Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1423: Page 8 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined
11. Before proceeding, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the well-settled principles governing interference with an order of acquittal by an Appellate Court, which were also discussed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. At the outset, we rely upon the seminal case of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2007 (4) SCC 415 wherein this Court had laid down the five-point canonical test as follows:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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.Page 9 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double 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." 4 (2007) 4 SCC 415.
12. To summarize, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or 'double' presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgements of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagauda Rudragaudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka Page 10 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 2024 INSC 320 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.
6.1 The Apex Court, in the case of Surendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2025 INSC 114, has observed in Para No. 11 as under:
11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka6, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus:
"38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29) "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42)
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:Page 11 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined (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 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."
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. Page 12 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) "8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two Page 13 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
7. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal.
The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not Page 14 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
8. With regard to the cases under the PC Act, the Apex Court, in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248, has observed in Para No. 68 as under:
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: -
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (I) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.Page 15 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment.
In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1) (d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an Page 16 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a Court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the Court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The Page 17 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined said presumption has to be raised by the Court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
9. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal appeals, the evidence is reappreciated and to prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined four witnesses. PW1 - Samirbhai Hematbhai Bavishi examined at Exh. 55 is the decoy and he has narrated all the procedure that had taken place until the trap was successful. In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that when he went to the ACB Office, the Trap Laying Officer did not ask him any questions and he had only consented to cooperate in the matter. He was introduced as Samirbhai by Ganatra Saheb and his address was also given by Ganatra Saheb to the panch witnesses. Ganatra Saheb had telephoned him on his office telephone number Page 18 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined 28265 and he is known to Ganatra Saheb for the past 20 years as the shops of the brothers-in-law of Ganatra Saheb are situated near his residence. Ganatra Saheb would frequently visit his office and he is friends with his brothers-in-law also. The signatures on the Panchnama were taken after the entire Panchnama was written and they had gone to the Circuit House, Gondal where the experiment was done. No amount was demanded from him before the procedure for the registration of the marriage had taken place and the accused had prepared the receipt of Rs. 3/- and given him but no amount was demanded from him. He does not remember whether he had given the amount of Rs. 5/- after the receipt was given. The accused did not demand any specific amount for celebration of the marriage and he did not make any efforts to give any amount lesser than the Rs. 200/-.
9.1 PW2 - Ramniklal Detroja examined at Exh. 58 is the panch witness who has narrated the facts as stated in the Panchnama which is produced at Exh. 59. In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the Page 19 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined witness has stated that when he reached the ACB Office, the decoy Samirbhai was already present and they had left in the ambassador belonging to Samirbhai. When they reached the table of the accused, he did not demand for any amount besides the Rs. 3/- for which the receipt was given and the accused did not demand any specific amount from the decoy. There was also no conversation that if the amount was not given, the work would not be done and the panch or the decoy did not tell the Trap Laying Officer where the amount was kept. He had earlier gone in a trap procedure at the ACB Office and the Panchnama Part-I written in the ACB Office was dictated by the Trap Laying Officer and was written by the writer. As the procedure was being done, the Trap Laying Officer was dictating and the writer was writing the Panchnama and thereafter, the signatures of all the concerned were taken and had affixed his signature on his statement and besides that he did not affix his signature on any other document. 9.2 PW3 - Manilal Nathalal Parmar examined at Exh. 64 was working as an Inspector in the Office of the Inspector Page 20 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined General of Registration, Ahmedabad, Gujarat State and his superior officer Inspector General of Registration was one Mr. J. I. Jani who expired on 28.04.1994 and he had given the order of sanction for prosecution which is produced at Exh. 65. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that all the procedure for the order of sanction for prosecution was done by late Mr. J. I. Jani. 9.3 PW4 - Pravinchandra Harjivandas Ganatra examined at Exh. 66 is the complainant, Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer who has narrated the entire procedure that was undertaken by him on 24.02.1993 for the trap. The complaint is produced at Exh. 67 and the witness has narrated all the procedure undertaken by him for the trap until the trap was successful and after the trap, he had taken over the investigation and recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and thereafter, had the correspondence for the order of sanction for prosecution and after the order of sanction for prosecution was received, he had filed the charge sheet before the concerned Court. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that he Page 21 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined was the complainant, Trap Laying Officer and had also investigated the offence and filed the charge sheet. He did not make a note of the secret information received in any station diary and he was known to the decoy about 20 years prior to the trap and was well known to the entire family of the decoy. When they went to the office of the Registrar (Marriage), there were a number of people present there and he did not make any efforts to request any of the persons present there to be a decoy. The witness has admitted that he could have done the experiment of the anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp at the ACB Office but he did not do it in the ACB Office and the trap money was his own personal money. The remaining amount of the currency notes smeared with anthracene powder which was a currency note of the denomination of Rs. 50/- was taken back from the decoy Samirbhai but no seizure memo regarding the same was prepared and he did not deposit the remainder amount with the government as it was his own personal money. They had gone to Gondal in the Ambassador Car belonging to the decoy Samirbhai and the Page 22 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined decoy Samirbhai had filled diesel in the ambassador but he did not take any money for the diesel expenditure. The entire procedure done at the Circuit House and the procedure at the office of the accused, was continuously bearing written in the Panchnama. The Panchnama was written at the Circuit House at Gondal and thereafter kept open and the remaining portion of the Panchnama was written in the Office of the Sub-Registrar (Marriage). The procedure undertaken for the anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp after the experiment was conducted is not mentioned in the Panchnama and at the time of the trap there were three inspectors working in the office. The Panchnama does not mention the manner in which the cooperation of the decoy Samirbhai was sought for and in the complaint, the place from where the currency notes were recovered, is not mentioned. Moreover, the procedure regarding the experiment of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp at the office of the accused is not mentioned in the complaint and the complaint does not bear the signature of the decoy Samirbhai or the panch witnesses. Page 23 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined
10. On a careful appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, several serious infirmities emerge which materially affect the credibility of the trap proceedings and the prosecution case. It has come on record that the decoy witness - Samirbhai was not an independent person but was known to the complainant - Trap Laying Officer - Pravinchandra Harjivandas Ganatra for nearly twenty years and the decoy was also a resident of Rajkot. Such prior acquaintance between the decoy and the complainant casts doubt on the independence and impartiality of the trap proceedings. It is further admitted by the complainant that the secret information allegedly received by him was not entered in the Station Diary. The complainant himself was the Trap Laying Officer who registered the complaint, organised the trap, and also carried out the entire investigation till the filing of the charge-sheet. Thus, the same officer acted as the complainant, Trap Laying Officer and Investigating Officer. This concentration of roles seriously affects the fairness and transparency of the investigation. Another significant irregularity is that the Page 24 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined complaint itself does not bear the signatures of either the decoy or the panch witnesses. The evidence on record also shows that the so-called "trap money" was not drawn from any government fund but was the personal money of the Trap Laying Officer. Initially, an amount of Rs. 250/- consisting of two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each and one currency note of Rs. 50/- was handed over to the decoy after smearing them with anthracene powder. Out of this amount, the decoy allegedly paid Rs. 200/- (two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each) to the accused and the remaining Rs. 50/- was taken back by the complainant from the decoy. Significantly, no seizure memo or Panchnama was prepared in respect of this remaining amount and the same was never deposited in the government treasury, the explanation being that it belonged to the Trap Laying Officer personally. The evidence further indicates that the first part of the Panchnama was drawn at the ACB Office, Rajkot Circuit House. After the alleged successful trap, the remaining portion of the Panchnama was prepared and the signatures of all concerned were obtained only at the end. Page 25 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined Though the demonstration of anthracene powder and ultraviolet lamp was carried out at the Circuit House, the subsequent Panchnama does not record the procedure undertaken at the scene of offence regarding the use of anthracene powder or ultraviolet lamp. It is also admitted that the alleged tainted amount was found lying in the open drawer of the accused's table. There is no evidence on record to show that the Trap Laying Officer made any inquiry with the panch witness or the decoy immediately after the trap as to where exactly the money was placed or what had transpired inside the office of the accused. The manner in which the trap raiding party travelled also appears unusual. The members of the trap party went to Gondal in a private Ambassador Car bearing registration No. GJ-3-B-9269 and even the diesel expenses of the vehicle were borne by the decoy. No amount towards such expenditure was paid by the Trap Laying Officer or from official sources. It is further borne out from the record that at the relevant time there were three other inspectors posted at the ACB Police Station. Despite this, the Page 26 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined complainant - Pravinchandra Harjivandas Ganatra chose to lodge the complaint before himself, arranged the trap personally and conducted the investigation single-handedly. The complaint also does not bear the signatures of the panch witnesses or the decoy. Additionally, the Panchnama was dictated by the Trap Laying Officer and written by his writer, rather than being prepared by the panch witnesses themselves. These cumulative circumstances create serious doubt regarding the manner in which the trap was organised and executed, thereby undermining the reliability of the prosecution case. In the absence of strict adherence to the safeguards governing trap proceedings, the evidence led by the prosecution becomes unsafe to rely upon.
11. In view of the settled position of law, the learned Trial Court has examined the oral as well as documentary evidence in its proper perspective. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the material inconsistencies and procedural irregularities appearing in the prosecution case, including the manner in which the trap was organised, the absence of independent corroboration and the doubtful Page 27 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined nature of the recovery of the alleged tainted currency notes. The learned Trial Court has also carefully evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and the procedural lapses in the trap proceedings, and on such appreciation has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubts. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are cogent, plausible and borne out from the record. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that when the view taken by the Trial Court is a reasonable and plausible view based on the evidence on record, the appellate Court would not ordinarily interfere with an order of acquittal unless the findings are shown to be perverse, illegal or manifestly erroneous. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. On the contrary, the Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire evidence and has passed a well-reasoned and properly justified judgment. In such circumstances, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment and Page 28 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/727/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026 undefined order. The appeal therefore, deserves to be dismissed, and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby confirmed. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, 2nd FTC, Gondal in Special Case no. 7/1997 on 19.09.2007, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 29 of 29 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:00:02 IST 2026