JENI PRIYA SINHA W/O AVINASH KUMAR vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/SCR.A/13419/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240683102026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 13419 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
JENI PRIYA SINHA W/O AVINASH KUMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. KADAMBARI SHARMA(17815) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. RAHUL SHARMA(8276) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. JAY A. MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

Date : 12/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice for and on
behalf of the respondent – State.
2. The present petition is filed under article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India as well as article 20(3) of The
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
challenging the action of the learned Trial Court exhibiting the
statement of the petitioner who is accused no.2 in the
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13419/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240683102026)
prosecution lodged by the CBI during the course of evidence of
witness who was examined at exhibit 133 and who is the
investigating officer.
3. The brief facts arise under the petition is that the
husband of the petitioner was working as a Divisional Engineer
(West), Western Railway, Rajkot, when he was trapped, by the
State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), on charges of accepting
the bribe amount to the extent of Rs.40,000/-. The complaint
was given by the State ACB on 13.03.2017, and trap was
carried out by the State ACB on 14.03.2017. While trap
proceedings were carried out, a separate team of State ACB
led by PW 14, i.e Shri D.D. Shimpi, carried out search at
residence of Shri Avinash Kumar i.e. the husband of the
present petitioner, and seized some incriminating documents
including cash amounting to a total of Rs.10,93,000/-. While
search was being conducted during the trap proceedings, at
the residence of the petitioner, her statement was recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by PW 14. It is the case of the
petitioner that she was made to sign her own statement which
is made in the proceedings initiated against her husband.
4. Subsequently, the offence was registered being FIR No.
RC0292017A0014 of 2017 on 21.12.2017 under the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, for the offence punishable under
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act before the
CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar Branch. Upon completion of the
investigation, final report was filed before the learned Special
CBI Court on 24.09.2018, which was numbered as Special CBI
Case No.9 of 2018 and which was tried before the learned
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13419/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240683102026)
Special Court for CBI Cases, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad. On 10.06.2026, the deposition of PW 14 came to
be recorded below exhibit 133, and during such deposition, the
petitioner's statement which was recorded at the time of
search was exhibited below exhibit 135. Though petitioner has
objected for exhibiting the said statement in the proceedings
wherein the petitioner is one of the accused, the learned court
has allowed the document to be exhibited on the ground that it
is not inculpatory in nature, and therefore, the same is subject
matter of challenge before this Court.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rahul Sharma and learned
special public prosecutor Mr. R. C. Kodekar for the CBI.
6. It is submitted that Section 161(2) of the Cr.P.C. compels
any witness to answer any question truthfully, and thus, there
was a testimonial compulsion on the part of petitioner to
answer the question truthfully. It is submitted that the
statement recorded of the petitioner vide exhibit 135 is hit by
Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be read against the
petitioner as evidence during trial. It is submitted that in the
charge-sheet which is filed, petitioner was shown as accused
as an abettor of the crime, and exhibiting the statement of the
petitioner who has been shown as accused is against the law
of evidence and infringing the constitutional right. In that
background, it is submitted to issue direction to the learned
Trial Court to remove the paragraph 18, 19, and 20 in the
deposition of PW 14 recorded below exhibit 133 in CBI Special
Case no.9 of 2018.
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13419/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240683102026)
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Kodekar, has
vehemently opposed this application and submitted that the
statement recorded by the Police Inspector, ACB police station,
Jamnagar, is clearly admissible under Section 157 of the Indian
Evidence Act as it is exculpatory in nature. It is submitted that,
as per the statement recorded during the investigation of ACB
Crime, she had only disclosed that the cash has been kept by
the husband, however, she further states in the statement that
she does not aware about the source of the said cash. It is
submitted that statement is not inculpatory statement, hence,
no error has been committed by the learned trial court in
exhibiting such statement during the course of evidence of PW
14. In that background, it is submitted not to interfere with the
impugned order.
8. Having considered the submissions made by learned
advocates and upon referring the facts, it emerges that the
impugned order is passed in the FIR which was registered by
the CBI, Gandhinagar, on 21.12.2017 on the basis of the
written complaint dated 19.12.2017 submitted by one Shri
Govind Singh Solanki, Police Inspector, CBI, Gandhinagar,
Gujarat, on the basis of the material gathered in previous case,
CBI, Gandhinagar, against Shri Avinash Kumar, the then
Divisional Engineer, Western Railway, O/o DRM, Rajkot
Division, Rajkot, where the allegations are made that while
working as a public servant Shri Avinash Kumar during the
period from 01.04.2016 to 14.03.2017 had amassed
disproportionate assets to his known source of income to the
tune of Rs.16,17,543/- which includes new currency note of
worth Rs.9.64 lakhs seized during the conduct of search at
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13419/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240683102026)
residential premise of Shri Avinash Kumar which disclosed the
offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
9. It is alleged that at the beginning of the cheque period
i.e. as on 01.04.2016 Shri Avinash Kumar and his wife Smt. Jeni
Priya Sinha i.e. the present petitioner were in possession of
assets of total value of Rs.18,07,976/-, and at the end of the
checking period as on 14.03.2017, both were in possession of
the assets total value of Rs.39,87,356/-, thus, it was alleged
that during the cheque period from 01.04.2016 to 14.03.2017,
both had acquired assets total value to the tune of
Rs.21,79,380/-. It is alleged that during the search at the
residence of Avinash Kumar cash amount to the tune of
Rs.10,93,700/- was found and seized. As per the charge-sheet,
the present petitioner had clarified during the search
proceedings that, cash found belonging to his husband,
subsequently, it was claimed that 9.50-10 lakhs was received
by her father for establishing the software development center
at Rajkot. However, during such course of investigation, they
could not give satisfactory reply related to this cash.
10. At the end of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to
be submitted alleging that the petitioner and her husband
were in possession of disproportionate of their known source of
income by Rs.18,13,408/- i.e. 154.23% for which they could not
give any satisfactory account. During the course of trial,
evidence of PW 14 who was the Police Inspector serving in the
ACB Police Station, Jamnagar, at the time when the offence
before the ACB Police Station was lodged who refers during the
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13419/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240683102026)
course of evidence the statement of the present petitioner
recorded on 14.03.2017 while search being carried out at the
residence and the cash amount of Rs.10,93,700/- was found.
11. Admittedly, when the statement was recorded which was
in the investigation before the ACB Police Station where the
petitioner was not an accused the offence before the CBI Police
Station was not registered. Therefore, such statement was
recorded under section 165 of Cr.P.C. in the proceeding where
the petitioner was not an accused. In that background, the
moot question arises for consideration before this Court is that
whether order of exhibiting the statement of the present
petitioner who is an accused same would hit by Section 162 of
the Cr.P.C.
12. In order determine the above question, again if one
would re-look into the facts, then it appears that the petitioner
was not an accused in the FIR which is lodged for the offence
punishable under the PC Act, FIR dated 14.03.2017 registered
for the offence punishable under section 7, 13(2) read with
section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act as admittedly three accused
were arranged in the FIR as accused, out of which accused
no.2 is husband of the present petitioner. Statement dated
14.03.2017 recorded in the capacity of wife of accused no.2 of
the present petitioner appears to be a statement under section
161 of the Cr.P.C. as she was the witness in the said
proceedings. Exhibiting the said statement during recording of
the evidence of the PW 14 in the proceedings arising from the
subsequent FIR which is filed on 21.12.2017 for the offence
punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13419/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240683102026)
the PC Act, wherein the petitioner was shown as the accused
no.2.
13. So far as the other contention of the learned advocate
that the statement is hit by section 162 of the Cr.P.C. In order
to appreciate such argument, the reference of section 161 and
162 is required to be made which reads as under:
161. Examination of witnesses by police. —
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this
Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the
State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe
in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may
examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with
the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions
relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than
questions the answers to which would have a tendency to
expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement
made to him in the course of an examination under this
section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true
record of the statement of each such person whose
statement he records.
2
[Provided that statement made under this sub-section may
also be recorded by audio-video electronic means:]
3
[Provided further that the statement of a woman against
whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13419/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240683102026)
354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 4[section
376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section
376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or
section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged
to have been committed or attempted shall be recorded, by a
woman police officer or any woman officer.
162. Statements to police not to be signed: Use of
statements in evidence. —
(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in
the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if
reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor
shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a
police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or
record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter
provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence
under investigation at the time when such statement was
made:
Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution
in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced
into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly
proved, may be used by the accused, and with the
permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict
such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of
such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used
in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose
only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-
examination.
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13419/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240683102026)
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any
statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section
32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); or to affect
the provisions of section 27 of that Act.
Explanation.—An omission to state a fact or circumstance in
the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to
contradiction if the same appears to be significant and
otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which
such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a
contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of
fact.
14. The exception of Section 162 provides that if it fulfills two
conditions then it becomes inadmissible under evidence.
Statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is not admissible in
evidence except for the limited purpose as provided under
Section 157 of the Evidence Act. The reference of Section 157
is required to be made hereinunder:
15. The general rule laid down in Section 157 is controlled by
special provision of Section 162 so far as the statement to the
police taken under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Section 162
prohibits the use of record containing the statement of witness
to the police as evidence against the accused as well as proof
of such statement by oral evidence. Such statement cannot be
used as a corroboration of Section 157 of the Evidence Act.
The police statement recorded under Section 162 or 161
cannot be looked except for the purpose of contradicting
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:43 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13419/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240683102026)
respective authors thereof in the witness box. In the instant
case, petitioner was not in a box, but her statement which is
recorded as a capacity of witness in the FIR which is lodged
against the husband is tried to be used through the evidence
of PW 14 who is the investigating officer of that case against
the present petitioner who is accused in the case. Generally,
the statement made under these sections is to be used only to
prove the contradictions and omissions to impeach the
testimony of witness, and therefore, the statement made
under these sections are not substantive piece of evidence.
Generally, the use of the statement can be made to the
investigating authorities for the purpose of ascertaining that
investigation is proceeding in the right direction or not.
Therefore, even where the police statement which is recorded
of the witness who is subsequently accused in the other
proceedings cannot be used as an admission or a confession
i.e. exculpatory in nature or inculpatory in nature.
16. Considering the above discussion, in the opinion of this
Court, order of exhibiting the statement of the petitioner
cannot be sustained. Resultantly, present petition deserves to
be allowed, and the same is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
AMIT ITALIAN
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:43 IST 2026