Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mansukhbhai Rumalbhai Palas on 6 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2493 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANSUKHBHAI RUMALBHAI PALAS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEET THAKKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR YM THAKKAR(902) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 06/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State
under Section-378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
challenging the judgment and order dated 15.09.2009 passed
by learned Special Judge (ACB) & 3 rd Additional Sessions
Judge, 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Panchmahal, Godhra
(hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Special Case
No.01 of 2007. By way of the impugned judgment and order,
the Accused has been acquitted of all the charges levelled
Page 1 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
against him under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
“Corruption Act“).
2. The short facts emerging from the record, reads as
under:-
2.1. As per the case of the complainant – Rupabhai Ramabhai
Nayak as police personnel of Godhra Taluka Police Station
was harassing his son namely Arjun in relation to false
prohibition cases levelled against him and in that connection,
accused Mansukhbhai Rumalbhai Palas working as Assistant
Sub-Inspector in Godhra Taluka Police Station came and met
complainant around ten days prior to 20.09.2006 and
demanded Rs.30,000/- as bribe not to arrest and remand his
son Arjun.
2.2. As the complainant was not affluent and rich person and
after bargain, accused ready to accept Rs.17,000/- thereby, he
had received Rs.10,000/- on 11.09.2006 from the complainant
and remaining Rs.7,000/- to be paid to accused. As
complainant could not arrange for Rs.7,000/- he met accused
on 19.09.2006 and requested to take some reasonable amount
Page 2 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
and finally, it was agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- on 21.09.2006.
2.3. So, in light of aforesaid facts, complainant has
approached ACB Office and on getting his complaint recorded
on 20.09.2006, trap was arranged after completing all
procedural formalities on 21.09.2006. The accused alleged to
have received Rs.5,000/- bribe from the complainant in
presence of Panchas on 21.09.2006 in the Police Station
where he was caught red-handed by raiding party and after
completing all necessary formalities, arrested him.
2.4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to
be filed after obtaining prior sanction to prosecute accused.
The charge under Sections-7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed by Special
Court below Exhibit-2 against accused who tried for the same.
3. The prosecution led following oral and documentary
evidences in support of it’s case and to bring home the
charges against Accused.
Oral Evidences of Prosecution
Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh.
1. Complainant Rupabhai Ramabhai Nayak 06
2. Panch Witness Mansingbhai Chhatabhai 08
Charpot
3. Panch Witness Sisodiya Surendrasinh 21
Page 3 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
Narsinh
4. A.C.B. P.I. Ambapratapsinh 33
Chandravijaysinh Jadeja
5. Investigating Officer Rajendrasinh 36
Natvarsinh Rana
Documentary Evidences
Sr.No. Document Particulars Exh.
1. Original Complaint 07
2. Trap Panchnama 11
3. Seizure memo 12
4. Copy of FIR CR.No.258/06 of Godhra Police 13
Station
5. Letter from ACB Office to S.T.Godhara 35
regarding allocating two government
employees for secret work
6. Receipt of FSL 37
7. Letter of FSL 38
8. Letter of FSL, explanation of muddamal 39
and report
9. Permission of prosecution 40
3.1. After conducting the Trial and appreciating the evidence
on record, the Trial Court has found that prosecution has
failed to establish the case and not able to prove the charges
beyond doubt, thereby acquitted the Accused from all the
charges levelled against him.
4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Meet
Thakkar for Appellant – State.
4.1. Learned APP has taken me through various oral as well
as documentary evidence, which are on record of the case. I
Page 4 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
have also independently examined and re-appreciated
evidence of witnesses examined by prosecution.
4.2. Learned APP would submit that the findings of acquittal
are contrary to law and evidence on record and the findings
recorded by the Trial Court are erroneous and based on
irrelevant material.
4.3. Learned APP has submitted that the Trial Court has
erroneously acquitted accused only on the ground that
complainant turned hostile having not supported the case of
prosecution by ignoring other evidence available on record. It
is submitted that raiding party has successfully conducted
raid wherein accused having demanded and accepted bribe
from complainant was proved.
4.4. Learned APP would further submit that there may be
some minor discrepancy remained in evidence of Panchas,
would not be a ground to acquit accused when other
evidences on record would prove that accused being public
servant had demanded illegal gratification from complainant
not to arrest and sought remand of his son Arjun.
4.5. Learned APP would further submit that as per settled
Page 5 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
legal position of law, once accused had caught red-handed by
raiding party and material on record would show the
involvement of accused in commission of crime, no benefit of
doubt be given to accused.
4.6. So, making the aforesaid submissions, learned APP
would request this Court to allow the present appeal.
5. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, I
would first like to remind myself the position of law
propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its various
decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while
deciding acquittal appeal especially in Anti-Corruption cases.
5.1. It would be apt to refer and rely upon the decision of the
Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
a case of Neeraj Dutta V/s. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of
Delhi) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 wherein it held as
under.
“88.What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
88.1 (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 servantPage 6 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
88.2 (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.
88.3 (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.
88.4 (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 SectionPage 7 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
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
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.
88.5 (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.
88.6 (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.
88.7 (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
said presumption has to be raised by the court as a
Page 8 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
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.
88.8 (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.”
(emphasis supplied)”
5.2. It would be also appropriate to refer and rely upon the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Mallappa and Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka reported in
(2024) 3 SCC 544 wherein scope of acquittal is succinctly
discussed and elaborated held thus:-
“24. We may firstly discuss the position of law
regarding the scope of intervention in a criminal appeal.
For, that is the foundation of this challenge. It is the
cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is
a presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused,
unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all
stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact
when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of
innocence gets concretized when the case ends in
acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on
appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the
Accused was not guilty, the presumption gets
strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to
rebut the same in appeal.”
“25. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal
and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond
doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there isPage 9 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-
visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the
High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified
power, especially when the order under challenge is of
acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is
whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the
evidence on record and gave due consideration to all
material pieces of evidence. The second point for
consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is
illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the
third consideration is whether the view taken by the
Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of
acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere
difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or
perversity.”
“26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in
a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon.
The ‘two-views theory’ has been judicially recognized by
the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation
of evidence results into two equally plausible views.
However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of
the Accused. For, the very existence of an equally
plausible view in favour of innocence of the Accused is
in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the
prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of
innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible,
following the one in favour of innocence of the Accused
is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also
settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of
acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High
Court to convict the Accused by reappreciating the
evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make
it practically impossible to settle the rights and
liabilities in the eyes of law. In Selvaraj v. State of
Karnataka, 2015 10 SCC 230“13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court
and on appraisal of the evidence, in our considered
view, the view taken by the trial court was a possible
one. Thus, the High Court should not have interfered
with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M.
Seshadri v. State of T.N., 2002 9 SCC 639 has laid downPage 10 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
that as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial
court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable view,
it is not permissible to interfere in appeal. The duty of
the High Court while reversing the acquittal has been
dealt with by this Court, thus:
“9. We are constrained to observe that the High
Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal.
It was required to deal with various grounds on
which acquittal had been based and to dispel those
grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles
while dealing with appeal against acquittal have
been overlooked by the High Court. If the
appreciation of evidence by the trial court did not
suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been
pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of
acquittal could not have been set aside. The view
taken by the learned trial court was a reasonable
view and even if by any stretch of imagination, it
could be said that another view was possible, that
was not a ground sound enough to set aside an
order of acquittal.””
(emphasis supplied)
In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., 2022 6 SCC 294 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court analyzed the relevant decisions and
summarized the approach of the appellate Court while
deciding an appeal from the order of acquittal. It
observed thus:
“7. It is well settled that:
7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal,
the reasons which had weighed with the trial court
in acquitting the Accused must be dealt with, in
case the appellate court is of the view that the
acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be
upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of
Karnataka, 2019 5 SCC 436 Anwar Ali v. State of
H.P., 2020 10 SCC 166)7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court,
the normal presumption of innocence in a criminalPage 11 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P.,
1955 AIR(SC) 807)7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on
record, the appellate court must be extremely slow
in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (see
Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, 1998 5 SCC 412)”
(emphasis supplied)”
5.3. The law on the issue germane in the present appeal has
also been succinctly discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in its recent judgment in the case of State of
Lokayuktha Police, Devanagere V/s. C. B. Nagaraj
[Delivered on 19th May, 2005 in Criminal Appeal
No.1157/2015 (2025 INSC 736)], wherein held as under:
“25. It is pertinent to note that till 05.02.2007, when the
Respondent had conducted the physical/spot inspection,
there is not even a whisper of there being any demand
of bribe. Moreover, when the Complainant went back to
the Respondent’s office at 5:30 PM with the money, the
prosecution case itself as per the deposition of its
witnesses makes it clear that the Respondent had
informed the Complainant that he had already
forwarded the concerned file. Thus, if the same is
accepted, there was no occasion for the Complainant to
go ahead with paying the amount, which he claims to be
in the nature of bribe demanded by the Respondent,
after the work for which the bribe was purportedly
sought, had already been done. The observation of
the High Court to this extent is correct that just
because money changed hands, in cases like the
present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the
same was pursuant to a demand, for the law
requires that for conviction under the Act, an
entire chain – beginning from demand,
acceptance, and recovery has to be completed. InPage 12 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is
suspicious, even if the two other components – of
payment and recovery can be held to have been
proved, the chain would not be complete. A penal
law has to be strictly construed [Md. Rahim Ali v
State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 @
Paragraph 45 and Jay Kishan v State of U.P., 2025
SCC OnLine SC 296 @ Paragraph 24]. While we will
advert to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act
hereinafter, there is no cavil that while a reverse onus
under specific statute can be placed on an Accused,
even then, there cannot be a presumption which casts
an uncalled for onus on the Accused. Chandrasha
(supra) would not apply as demand has not been
proven. In Paritala Sudhakar v State of Telangana, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1072, it was stated thus:
21. As far as the submission of the State is that the
presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then
was, would operate against the Appellant is
concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the
factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of
animus between the Appellant and complainant, is
not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption
under Section 20 of the Act would not militate
against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement
in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC
250:
22. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in
the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that the
defence story set up by the appellant cannot be said
to be wholly improbable. Furthermore, it is not a
case where the burden of proof was on the Accused
in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Even otherwise,
where demand has not been proved, Section 20
will also have no application. (Union of India v.
Purnandu Biswas [(2005) 12 SCC 576: (2005) 8
Scale 246] and T. Subramanian v. State of T.N.
[(2006) 1 SCC 401: (2006) 1 Scale 116])”
5.4. Thus, it is now a well-settled legal position of law that a
Page 13 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
heavy burden is cast upon the prosecution to prove that the
Accused persons have demanded and accepted the bribe, and
the same would have to be recovered from Accused. In a case
where any of these ingredients are missing, the charges
levelled against Accused under Section 7 read with Section 13
would not be attracted.
6. After reexamining and re-appreciating evidence on
record, following glaring facts emerge from evidence led by
prosecution need to be considered:-
i. The complainant has turned hostile and not supported
the case of prosecution having completely dislodged the
factum of any demand made by accused in connection with
arrest / remand of his son Arjun. It further appears that APP
had tried to cross-examined the complainant at length, but,
every suggestion put to him was denied by him.
ii. The complainant was also cross-examined at the
instance of accused wherein he has admitted that he and his
son were arrested in connection with prohibition case in the
year 2005 and also in connection with a riot case. He has
further admitted that his son was arrested by Godhra Police in
Page 14 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
connection with different prohibition case filed against him
and to teach lesson to police, he decided to file complaint
against accused.
iii. The complainant in his evidence has not whispered that
accused has demanded any money when the trap was
arranged by raiding party. As per his evidence, without any
demand of money, he had given Rs.5,000/- to accused.
iv. Even, as per evidence of Panch examined as PW-2 would
indicate that at the time of actual receipt of money by accused
from complainant, he was not present, as before he reached to
and entered into Godhra Police Station, complainant had
already handed over money to accused, thereafter
complainant ran away from the spot. He further admitted in
his cross-examination that preparation of Panchnama was not
read over to him and he has put his signature in the
Panchnama prepared by raiding Officer. Further, it appears
that under compulsion and threat of departmental proceeding,
he was forced to join as Panch.
v. So far as Panch Witness No.2 is concerned, he was
examined as PW-3 by prosecution wherein also, a similar fact
Page 15 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
came on record as appeared from evidence of PW-2. When
Panchs were not made aware about the contents of
Panchnama though signed by them, it cannot be said that it is
duly proved by prosecution. Thus, the evidence of Pancha
Witnesses is not fully supporting the case of prosecution and
his independentness has remained under cloud.
vi. It further came on record that accused has neither
registered any FIR against son of complainant nor any process
of remand undertaken by him. FIR which was relied upon by
prosecution was not investigated by accused though filed
against son of complainant.
7. Thus, the upshot of the aforesaid discussion and glaring
discrepancies noticed in the evidence of prosecution, it
appears that prosecution has failed to successfully established
beyond doubt on record that accused has demanded and
accepted bribe money from complainant which is sine-qua-
none to convict him for the offence in question.
8. Hence, an overall assessment and examination of
evidence would suggest that the prosecution has egregiously
failed to prove the fact that Accused has demanded a bribe
Page 16 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2493/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
thereby, failed to prove the charges levelled against the
Accused. So, after overall assessment of evidence and its re-
appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Trial
Court, I am in complete agreement with view taken by the
Trial Court having acquitted the Accused.
9. Thus, considering the set of evidence on record and in
light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
as reproduced hereinabove, which deals with the law on
acquittal so also issue germane in the appeal, I am of the
opinion that no error has been committed by the Trial Court
while acquitting the respondent.
10. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Resultantly, the
impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby
confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and
proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial
Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Bhoomi
Page 17 of 17
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 10 21:37:38 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link