STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAMESH VINA PANDI

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1333 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESH VINA PANDI
==========================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JAY H PATEL(11511) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 01/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment and order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the learned Special
Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Surat (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial
Court”) in N.D.P.S. Case No.18 of 2010, whereby the trial Court has
acquitted the original accused (respondent herein) from the offences
punishable under Section 8(c), 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter be referred to as “the
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
NDPS Act”].
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 25.09.2010 original
complainant R.C. Palande, was serving as a Police Sub Inspector at
Katargam Police Station, Surat. At that time, Police Inspector Vinay
Shukla and Police Sub Inspector J.B. Buval were also present. During
that time, Police Constable Valjibhai Manubhai received secret
information through his personal informer that Ramesh Veena Pandi,
who was wanted in a previous narcotics case registered at Katargam
Police Station, who was residing in Vijaynagar Slum, in the house of
Radha Mohan, Madrashi Mohalla, Old G.I.D.C., Katargam, Surat and
was come to an abandoned house situated in Shantinagar Slum,
opposite the gate of Shreejicharan Society, for concealing ganja. That
Upon receiving such information, Police Constable Valji Manubhai
informed the complainant, Police Inspector Vinay Shukla and Police
Sub Inspector J.B. Buval about the said information. A written report
regarding the secret information was prepared and sent in sealed
cover to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Surat City.
2.1 On the basis of the said information, the complainant instructed
Police Constable Janak to call two panch witnesses for the purpose of
conducting a raid at the place mentioned in the information. After the
two panch witnesses arrived, they were informed about the secret
information. Thereafter, the police personnel of the surveillance staff
at Katargam Police Station were also informed about the said
information. Subsequently, the police personnel and the panch
witnesses conducted a personal search of one another, but no
intoxicating or narcotic substance was found. Thereafter, Head
Constable Mavsinghbhai was instructed to bring the Katargam Police
Station, Surat City seal, sealing wax, cloth, candle, needle, thread,
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
plastic bags for taking samples, investigation kit and other materials
required for sealing. The investigation box was also searched and
checked. The government vehicle as well as the private vehicle were
searched and checked. The drivers and operators of both vehicles
were also personally searched. Thereafter, the complainant, Police
Inspector V.H. Shukla, the panch witnesses and the police personnel
departed from the police station in the government jeep and private
vehicle towards the place mentioned in the secret information. That
when they reached near G.I.D.C. Chowki, the vehicles were stopped.
All the members of the raiding party, Police Inspector Shukla and the
panch witnesses got down from the vehicles and proceeded on foot
and took positions around the abandoned house situated in
Shantinagar Slum, opposite the gate of Shreejicharan Society. After
some time, a person matching the description given in the secret
information was seen approaching from the direction of Shraddha
Society, carrying something on his head in a plastic sack. He was
intercepted and apprehended on the road opposite the gate of
Shreejicharan Society. When he was asked what was contained in the
sack in his possession, he stated that it contained ganja. Thereafter,
after following the prescribed procedure, Police Inspector Vinay
Shukla conducted a personal search of accused in the presence of the
panch witnesses, but no narcotic or intoxicating substance was found
from him. Thereafter, the plastic sack in the possession of the
accused was opened and checked. Thereafter, arrangements were
made to call the FSL officer, tailor and person responsible for weighing
the substance to the spot. After the FSL officer, tailor and person
responsible for weighing arrived at the spot, the prescribed procedure
was followed. The tailor was instructed to prepare and bring cloth
bags of the size required for taking 100 - 100 gram samples as well as
a cloth bag of the required size for the plastic sack. The FSL officer
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
conducted a preliminary examination of the substance found at the
spot and gave a preliminary opinion that the plant material was ganja.
Thereafter, the ganja was removed from the plastic sack and the
weight of the empty plastic sack was found to be 125 grams. The
ganja removed from the sack was thereafter placed back into the sack
in the same condition, and the sack along with the ganja was
weighed. The total weight was found to be 10.400 kilograms. After
deducting the weight of the sack, the net weight of the ganja was
found to be 10.275 kilograms. Out of the said ganja, as instructed by
the FSL officer, two samples of 100 grams each were weighed and
placed in two separate plastic bags for the purpose of FSL
examination. The seized material was duly sealed and packed and
was taken into custody for examination. The accused was asked
whether he possessed any licence or permit for keeping the said
ganja, to which he stated that he did not possess any such licence or
permit. Thereafter, a seizure memo was served upon the accused.
The person who carried out the weighing issued a certificate
regarding the weight, bearing the signatures of the person operating
the weighing scale and the panch witnesses. An arrest memo was also
served upon the accused, and he was arrested for the offence
punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
2.2 Accordingly, on 25.09.2010, the complainant lodged a
complaint against the accused at Katargam Police Station. Thereafter,
the complaint, seized muddamal, accused, panchnama and other
papers were forwarded to the Police Station Officer along with a
forwarding list. The Police Station Officer made an entry regarding the
seized property in the muddamal register and took custody of the
same. Further investigation in the present case was carried out by PSI
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
J.B. Buval. He recorded the statements of the police personnel who
had participated in the raid and those of other witnesses. He
conducted a search of the residence of accused, sent the seized
muddamal to the FSL for examination, obtained remand of the
accused, and upon receipt of the FSL examination report, placed the
same on record as part of the case papers.
2.3 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being
explained it to him, the accused has denied having committed any
offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for
trial and hence, the case was tried by the Trial Court.
3. I t appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the witnesses and in addition to this, the
prosecution has also produced the documentary evidence.
4. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that they are innocent.
5. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant has preferred this appeal.
7. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.Jay Patel, learned counsel for
the respondents – accused at length.
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
8. Ms.Jhaveri, L earned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which
are narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that the
prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary
evidence, despite this fact, the trial Court has not considered the
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while
referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has
assailed the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the
trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence connecting
the accused to the alleged offence in its proper perspective and even
the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against
the accused. While referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the
material collected against the accused, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has established the
case against the accused by examining the witnesses, who have
supported the case of the prosecution, however, the trial Court has
discarded and disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the witnesses have
fully supported the case of the prosecution, however, the trial Court
has not appreciated the same and passed the judgment and order of
acquittal which is illegal and unjust. She has submitted that it is
settled legal position that the evidence of a single witness is sufficient
for conviction if the same is reliable and trustworthy and in the
present case, though the evidence of all the witnesses are reliable
and trustworthy, without any cogent reason, the trial Court has
disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the witnesses.
8.1 Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the
evidence on record, based on erroneous appreciation of material
evidence, and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in
law, thereby calling for interference by this Court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. She has also submitted that the learned Trial
Court has materially erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the findings recorded by
the trial Court were therefore perverse, illegal, and contrary to the
evidence on record.
8.2 Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also
submitted that the muddamal article was seized from the possession
of the accused and he was identified by the witnesses, despite this,
the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal, which is unjust, illegal and erroneous. She has submitted
that the ganja was seized from the scene of the offence and
necessary panchnama was drawn and followed the procedure
provided under the NDPS Act. She has submitted that necessary
procedure as provided under Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act
is fully complied with by the authorities and it was also proved that
the muddamal article was in the possession of the accused.
8.3 According to Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have
imposed necessary sentence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
has prayed to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – accused has
supported the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
the trial Court has not committed any error of law and fact in
acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them.
Learned counsel for the respondents - accused has submitted that the
ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are not proved
beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly
acquitted the accused as the complainant has failed to prove the
charge levelled against the accused. He has also submitted that there
is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime in
question. He has submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution
suffers from material contradictions, omissions, and inconsistencies,
which create serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case
and the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of
the alleged offences and has not produced reliable, trustworthy, and
corroborative evidence connecting the respondent with the
commission of the alleged offence. He has submitted that it is a
settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the presumption of
innocence in favour of an accused is further strengthened by an order
of acquittal. It is submitted that unless the findings recorded by the
trial Court are shown to be perverse, illegal, or contrary to the
evidence on record, the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering
with an order of acquittal. It is submitted that the appellant has failed
to point out any infirmity, illegality, perversity, or misreading of
evidence in the impugned judgment and order and the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court are based upon proper
appreciation of the evidence and settled legal principles. Learned
counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appeal being
meritless deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
10. On examining the evidence available on record and the material
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
placed before this Court, it appears from the facts of the case that
P.W.9 was serving at Katargam Police Station and received secret
information from an informant that the wanted accused, i.e. the
present accused, had come to Shantinagar, situated opposite the gate
of Shreejicharan Society in the Katargam area, for the purpose of
concealing psychotropic substances. The said information was
conveyed to the P.S.I., i.e. P.W.1 – Shri R. C. Palandey, in the presence
of another P.S.I., Shri Jayantilal Babulal Buval, and thereafter, the said
information was communicated to Police Inspector Mr. Vinay
Harishbhai Shukla (P.W.10). After recording the information, a report
was prepared and sent to the D.C.P., Zone-3, Surat, through a police
constable in a sealed cover. Thereafter, the panch witnesses were
called and, in their presence, an initial panchnama was drawn. The
police party proceeded to the place in a police jeep along with a
private auto-rickshaw. Upon reaching the said place, the accused was
found coming there carrying a plastic sack. The accused was
intercepted and questioned regarding the information received by the
police. The accused was also asked whether he knew the Gujarati
language and which language was convenient for him. After
introducing themselves, the police officers asked him to respond
accordingly. The accused was further informed that, if he so desired,
his search could be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer.
However, he declined and refused the same. Thereafter, the police
officers proceeded with the search and seizure procedure. During the
search, the police personnel found cannabis, as referred to under the
provisions of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the police
personnel immediately called for a weighing machine along with a
goldsmith. At the place of the incident, with the help of the weighing
machine, the muddamal article was weighed and was found to be
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
10.275 grams of cannabis. Out of the said muddamal article, two
samples of 10 grams each were drawn and separately sealed, and the
necessary formalities regarding seizure and sampling of the
muddamal articles were completed. The muddamal articles were
thereafter sent to the concerned Police Station and handed over to
the P.S.O. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
found sufficient material and evidence against the accused, and
accordingly, the charge-sheet came to be filed for the alleged offence.
11. Considering the depositions of P.W.1 – Rameshchandra
Chandrarao Palande (Exh.7), P.W.9 – Valjibhai Manubhai Hadiya
(Exh.25), P.W.10 – Vinay Harishbhai Shukla (Exh.26), and P.W.13 –
Jayantilal Babulal Buval (Exh.43), it appears that the case of the
prosecution is that P.W.9 received secret information and that such
information was conveyed to the senior police officer, i.e. P.W.1. At
that time, P.W.13 – Jayantilal Babulal Buval was present at the Police
Station. P.W.10, being the higher officer of Katargam Police Station,
was also present there. The information was immediately reduced into
writing, and a report was prepared and sent to the D.C.P., Zone-3,
through a police constable. However, this fact is not borne out from
the evidence of P.W.10, nor has any material been produced on
record by the prosecution to establish that the procedure prescribed
under Sections 42, 43, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act was duly complied
with. It is also relevant to note that, from the evidence of P.W.7, it
emerges that the case of the prosecution, as put forward through the
evidence of P.W.1 with the assistance of P.W.9, P.W.13 and P.W.10,
suffers from material contradictions with regard to the place where
the muddamal article was weighed. From the evidence of P.W.7, it
appears that he was carrying on the business of Namkin and was
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
called by the Police Station along with a weighing machine near
Gajera Circle, Katargam area, for the purpose of weighing the
muddamal article. He went there and, after completing the weighing
of the muddamal article, returned to his shop. He further deposed
that he was not issued any slip in favour of the complainant regarding
the weighing of the total muddamal article. He stated that, except for
this, he had not undertaken any other procedure or issued any receipt
and that he had merely signed on a blank paper. He admitted that the
certificate at Exhibit 22 was shown to him and that he had signed the
same. He also admitted that, after obtaining the aggregate weight of
the muddamal bag containing the psychotropic substance, he had not
separately weighed the gunny bag and that the gross weight was
mentioned along with the gunny bag. Thus, P.W.7 has stated facts
contrary to the evidence of the police witnesses with regard to the
manner in which, and the place where, the muddamal article was
weighed. Therefore, in the circumstances, the evidence of the police
witnesses referred to hereinabove is mutually contradictory and is
also not supported by the evidence of the independent witness.
12. On perusal of the evidence of the panch witnesses examined by
the prosecution, it appears that these witnesses have not supported
the case of the prosecution, i.e., P.W.3 and P.W.4, nor has any
incriminating material been elicited from their evidence. So far as the
sealing, sampling, and sending of the samples to the FSL are
concerned, there are contradictions in the evidence. Further, so far as
compliance with the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act is
concerned, the same is found to have been violated in the present
case. From the evidence of the aforesaid four witnesses, viz.-a-viz. the
evidence of P.W.8, it clearly emerges that the prosecution has
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
miserably failed to establish the charge against the accused, as there
has been a clear breach of the mandatory provisions of Sections 42,
43, 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. In view of the fact that the
prosecution has failed to establish the fundamental facts regarding
the seizure of the muddamal from the possession of the accused, and
there are contradictory versions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.9,
the prosecution case becomes doubtful. Further, so far as the raid
arranged by P.W.1, P.W.13 and P.W.10 and the place mentioned in
the information are concerned, contradictory evidence has come on
record. So far as the ownership of Hut No. 203, where, as alleged by
the prosecution, the accused had concealed the psychotropic
substance, is concerned, there is no evidence on record regarding its
ownership. It is also not clear whether the owner was joined as an
accused, arraigned as an accused, or was absconding in connection
with the alleged offence. No such details have emerged during the
course of recording the evidence of the witnesses, nor has any
material been produced to establish the ownership of the hut. The
area in question is densely populated with huts. However, neither
were the statements of any independent witnesses recorded, nor
were such witnesses cited or examined by the prosecution. The
raiding party conducted the raid in broad daylight and in an area
where independent witnesses were admittedly available at the
relevant time. Despite this, none of the independent witnesses was
examined, cited, or even shown to have had their statements
recorded by the prosecution. While considering the evidence of the
police witnesses, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the same
with due caution. It is true that merely because the witnesses are
police officers, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on that
ground. However, their evidence is required to be subjected to close
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
scrutiny, and if, upon such scrutiny, it is found to be cogent and
trustworthy, a conviction can be based upon such evidence. However,
in the present case, there are material contradictions in the evidence
of the police witnesses with regard to the place of the incident and
the manner in which the muddamal articles were allegedly seized
from the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to
establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is
also relevant to note that the accused does not know the Gujarati
language. However, from the evidence of the witnesses, it has not
emerged that any interpreter was called to explain or translate the
proceedings to the accused. So far as the seizure memo and arrest
memo are concerned, the accused has signed the same in the Udia
language and not even in Hindi. Therefore, the endorsement made by
the police officers that the contents were first translated into Hindi
and explained to the accused before completing the procedure
creates a serious doubt regarding due compliance with the prescribed
procedure. The learned Trial Court, while considering the evidence of
the witnesses, has held that the prosecution failed to comply with the
mandatory provisions and violated the procedure prescribed under
the NDPS Act. It is well settled that merely because there has been
non-compliance with a mandatory provision, an order of acquittal
cannot, in every case, be passed. At the same time, it is equally
important to note that mandatory provisions are required to be
complied with, and such compliance must be established through
cogent and reliable evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the
learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal, having regard to the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion
that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
13. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
Appellate Court 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 their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
14. Further, 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. Further, while
exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the
Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which they are charged.
15. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43 , which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and
another , reported in [ 2022] 3 SCC 471 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more
particularly in paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out
by the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC
2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with
the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40.
Hence, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by
the trial Court.
16. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169 , wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa
and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of
the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a
judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:
“42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
(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 emphasize 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.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential
for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly
indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for
discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able
to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It
was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it
would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a
contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is
absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject
their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of
the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this
light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing
with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant
Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the
benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”
17. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
18. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
19. It is observed that, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, while registering the FIR against the
accused, the concerned Investigating Officer himself recorded that
the facts disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore,
an FIR was required to be registered against all persons involved in
the offence of corruption. From the evidence of P.W.13, it appears
that, based on the facts stated in the FIR, statutory proceedings under
the Prevention of Corruption Act were initiated against the Gujarat
State Traffic Police. However, there is nothing on record to indicate
the present status or outcome of those proceedings. Therefore, this
Court requests the Director of Prosecution to look into the matter. If
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1333/2012 (GJHC240438312012) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
the proceedings have not culminated in a criminal trial, appropriate
action shall be taken against the concerned police officer(s) involved
in the alleged acts of corruption, as referred to in the present case.
20. In view of the above, t h e present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is
hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. The
copy of this order be sent to the office of Director of the Prosecution
for appropriate action.
( HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026